Jump to content

Talk:Operation Olive Branch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Invasion

[edit]

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Seems fine to call this an invasion, plenty of RS describing it as such. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling invasion looks here correct per RS Shadow4dark (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RS according to what? Half of these are blogposts. Also WP:UNDUE even if it's described as invasion by some. + Syrian troops are involved. Beshogur (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also funny VOA doesn't even use invasion but The Afrin operation poses considerable military and political risks for Turkey. Erdogan has slammed critics who describe the operation as an "invasion" and said Turkish troops would leave after fulfilling their mission.
middleeasteye uses both but invasion only 2 times while operation 8 times (except for operation names, eg. Operation Euphrates Shield).
This user above is giving misleading examples here. Beshogur (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The PRIF blog is a WP:NEWSBLOG. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected

[edit]

Page has been protected for 72 hours so the matter of whether to call it a "cross-border military operation" or "invasion" can be discussed here. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol as soon as you’ve been proven completely wrong by the above talk page comment you block editing on the page to protect your little Turkish propaganda phrase. Idiots like you are why people don’t take this website seriously anymore. Buncha power hungry losers running the site Lavipao (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]
Seems fine to call this an invasion, plenty of RS describing it as such. Lavipao (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some high-quality academic resources calling this an invasion:
  • doi:10.33182/tc.v3i1.3081
  • Schmidinger (2021, "Autonomous administration in the shadow of Turkish aggression: De facto (Kurdish) autonomy in Northern Syria and the Turkish invasions of Efrîn and northeastern Syria in 2018–2019", in The Kurds in Erdogan's "New" Turkey, Routledge, ISBN 9781003143895)
  • doi:10.1108/REPS-07-2019-0096
  • doi:10.1108/OXAN-DB270708
  • doi:10.33182/tc.v3i1.2951
  • Baghdassarian & Zadah (2021, "Voices from Afrin: First-Hand Accounts of Turkish Crimes against the Kurds and Policy Proposals from Those Affected", Yale Journal of International Affairs, 16, 119-135)
  • doi:10.13135/2611-853X/10572. Bondegezou (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Listen, I am not denying some people call it this way, but it's WP:UNDUE. Simply look at countries' reactions and sources section. Something called "ctrl+f" exists btw. Prove me otherwise. Beshogur (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't provided any evidence of this being a minority view. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh, check search results I've provided some years ago. (above)
    [1] "afrin offensive" (16,000 results)
    [2] "operation olive branch" (72,200 results)
    [3] "olive branch operation" (56,300 results)
    [4] "afrin invasion" (2,990 results)
    Somehow can't see google search numbers now. Beshogur (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Raw google numbers are meaningless here. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reactions of countries are meaningless, google numbers are meaningless but cherry picked sources are meaningful. Beshogur (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Google numbers include non-RS and none of the sources I provided use the very specific 'Afrin invasion' phrasing. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think I can't find such sources? You're simply cherry picking again.Google: "Turkish military operation afrin paper" I've provided evidence that invasion is used by the minority but news outlets and countries' reactions. Beshogur (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And all three of the first sources from that search query also use the term invasion... Traumnovelle (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm trying to show I can find academic sources calling it otherwise as well (everyone's google search results are different). Also you couldn't prove that invasion is called by the majority. Beshogur (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can but instead of actually proving that you've just argued with people without providing any proper evidence to convince them that the term is undue despite use in academic journals and by leading organisations in the relevant field. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Google had always been an indicator deciding this, not chery picked sources. You still haven't proved otherwise. Beshogur (talk) 08:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is irrelevant and should not be considered. WP:WEIGHT Beshogur (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've provided no reliable sources here. I see more sources using invasion than not using the term (and not using the term does not necessarily mean they're opposed/against the term) Traumnovelle (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok this is going nowhere but if I present you dome 4-5 academic thing saying it's operation, etc. Will you be convinced? Read again, I don't deny people calling this an invasion but it's a minority view as evindences were given (google search results, news outlets, how countries reacted). Read my comment about VOA and middleeasteye please. Beshogur (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That'd be enough for both views to be represented, if it is a minority view the burden is on you to demonstrate it as such. The I must've copied the wrong source with the VOA; little weight should be put into what a national broadcaster of a Turkish ally states about it. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've presented my arguments, you haven't. Your arguments being these 5 particular sources. You should provide proof that this offensive being seen as an invasion by the majority, not that 3-4 users agreeing here means anything. Beshogur (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And your argument has failed to convince anyone because you're not providing sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll be really satisfied if I cherry pick some sources? That's the easiest thing to do, yet you don't understand what I mean.
    You won't become convinced. And these examples are not even important. I showed you proof with google search results. little weight should be put into what a national broadcaster of a Turkish ally states about it sure sure, now you don't even like the source. Voice of America is heavily anti-Turkish government. You think they're supporting this? Beshogur (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First source: 'Though the decision of Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, to invade the north-
    east Syrian region' governed by the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD), may have come as a
    surprise to some, it is in fact consistent with the rationale of a regime that counts the fight against
    the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) – considered 'terrorist' not only by Turkey, but also by the United
    States and the EU – among its top security priorities.
    Second source: Turkey’s military incursion against Kurdish groups in Afrin, Syria, has helped bring US-backed ground offensives targeting ISIS to a near halt, multiple US officials tell CNN, putting the military campaign against the terror group at risk, an effort seen as one of the Trump administration’s principle successes.
    Fourth source: Turkey has made several incursions into Syria. In August 2016, Turkish forces battled the Islamic State for weeks to take control of the northern Syrian town of Al Bab, crucially with the help of Russian and American air support.
    Fifth source: But Damascus has not followed through on that threat. It has condemned Turkey's incursion, but not sent troops to Afrin to support Kurdish fighters it suspects of wanting independence from Damascus in the long run.
    So 4/5 sources you've provided would be evidence that this is an invasion. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good excuses. Look at their titles. The European Parliament source contains 5x Operation Peace Spring (name of the operation, propaganda in this case), 12 times operation (except Operation Peace Spring, and title 1x), 1 time invasion.
    I don't see any other than this only word. Incursion =/= invasion. Invasion means to conquer a territory. Good that you disproved yourself. Beshogur (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to the OED an incursion is an invasion: [15] Traumnovelle (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I placed below that I can agree on terminologies like military incursion, military intervention, military offensive but instead "military operation" if this offends many people.
    Cambridge
    Invasion: an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country
    Incursion: a sudden attack on or act of going into a place, especially across a border
    Did Turkey take take control of another country? If yes, how did Turkey take control of another country when the Syrian Interim Government and the Syrian National Army is in charge in those regions? Beshogur (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also considering:
    • Operation Olive Branch (Turkish: Zeytin Dalı Harekâtı) was an invasion by the Turkish Armed Forces and Syrian National Army
    • Operation Olive Branch (Turkish: Zeytin Dalı Harekâtı) was a military incursion by the Turkish Armed Forces and Syrian National Army
    1. This wasn't done against the Syrian government (UN recognized in this case, but a militant group)
    2. Syrian factions were already inside Syria, military incursion doesn't makes sense in this context too. 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria fits better for an incursion. Similarly Operation Euphrates Shield was directed against ISIL and YPG. Beshogur (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to dismiss RS based on this interpretation. Turkey did take control of territory so that makes the point moot. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Turkey did take control of territory so that makes the point moot did Turkey made any implication of annexing this regions? Yes it's ruled by Turkish proxies like SDF is a US proxy. Doesn't mean SDF offensives were invasions done by the US. Beshogur (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need to annex a region for it to be an invasion. This is tiresome, plenty of RS call this an invasion and I'm inclined to take their word for it over yours. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I proved you evidence that operation is used more than invasion. Call whatever you want, I don't care, but don't say invasion being more prevalent. WP:UNDUE. That's untrue. Beshogur (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please stop saying you provided evidence, all you did was use a google query which not only includes non-RS you specifically searched for the phrase 'afrin invasion', said phrase is not used in any of the RS that describe this event as an invasion. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because it's about Afrin? Invasion of Syria for example would give you 3-4x more results because of various military interventions, yet it's still a minority. You're saying I haven't showed evidence, your evidence is 5 cherry picked sources. While I showed google results, showed you news outlets, showed how countries reacted to it. Yet you insist on your 5 sources. You ignore WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Beshogur (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also if some people are really offended by this "operation" terminology due to the special military operation, for WP:NPOV, other names can be used eg. military incursion, military intervention, etc. This is definitely an invasion since main troops are Syrians, and Turkish army doesn't control any soil. Beshogur (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beshogur, over this and the previous section, I see 4 editors supporting the use of "invasion" and only you objecting. Multiple reliable sources have been provided and it's reliable sources that determine what we say, not the countries' reactions and sources section (the diplomatic views of other countries counts as biased and primary source material). You've made your case, but I think you need to think about respecting the WP:CONSENSUS view of editors. Bondegezou (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple reliable sources have been provided and it's reliable sources that determine what we say maybe you should read the sources mentioned in the article again, not few cherry picked academic sources that doesn't even appear here. I can also spam reliable sources / news outlets (unline those above whom half of them are blogpost like / others misleading). And 3 user consensus isn't "consensus". WP:UNDUE read again. Beshogur (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example: Operation Euphrates Shield, invasion appears as 3 times:
1. the unacceptable invasion of Turkey into Syria (reaction of Cyprus)
2. List of invasions in the 21st century (see also)
3. Cyprus House condemns Turkey's invasion of Syria (source of the reaction)
Yet it's appropriate by ignoring WP:UNDUE?
Also Lavipao POV pusing and manipulating every article.
I'm still trying to tell how majority being Syrian troops of this particular conflict makes an invasion. Examples like: military incursion, military intervention, military offensive acceptable for a more neutral tone, but invasion is anything other than NPOV. Beshogur (talk) 17:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are the only person waging this war of disinformation trying to get your “cross border operation” term used instead of the real term, invasion. You have been shown many sources which refer to this as an invasion but yet you continue to fight against the consensus to keep your false narrative. You should be banned from Wikipedia for your obvious bias Lavipao (talk) 01:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bushranger: can we protect 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria as well, Lavipao (talk · contribs) is POV pushing yet again.[16] Beshogur (talk) 11:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every single person in the talk page has disagreed with you and provided clear sources as to why this should be called an invasion. You are fighting against consensus and the truth to continue your POV pushing crusade. Please stop Lavipao (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to stop with your personal attacks. 3 person consensus isn't a consensus. Look at previous talk topics for evidence. 5 cherry picked academic paper doesn't mean you're right. Avoid stating opinions as facts. Beshogur (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re literally gatekeeping anyone from presenting the truth on Wikipedia by claiming that everyone else’s sources are false and opinions and that your opinion is an unarguable fact.
No one in the talk page agrees with you. The academic sources don’t agree with you. The consensus is against you.
You are preventing Wikipedia from functioning correctly in an attempt to use it as a platform to promote your dictatorship’s propaganda.
5 academic sources is absolutely enough to add something into Wikipedia. You need to allow others to edit this page or I’ll be reporting you to the admins Lavipao (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go ctrl+f the main page, it's not like manipulating this. Beshogur (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After 6 days of discussion, Traumnovelle, Shadow4dark, Lavipao and myself support the use of the term “invasion”, while Beshogur opposes it. No-one else has expressed an opinion. While Beshogur is of course welcome to continue arguing his position, we have sufficient agreement to include "invasion" in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh suddenly it becomes an invasion because 4 users agreed to this? Maybe change the title too. Cherry picking 5 sources isn't an evidence as you and Traumnovelle have failed to put an evidence that invasion is used by the majority. Beshogur (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to call this an invasion, best thing is to do an RM and propose to change the title, which is currently calling it an operation. Selfstudier (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That makes no sense. Dozens of pages use the term invasion with a different title and a common name does not have to be an accurate term. For a completely unrelated FA example Burnt Candlemas uses the term invasion but the title is at the common name which makes no mention of invasion. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS?, problems at other pages should be addressed at those pages. Meanwhile, I don't really understand why one would not use a commonname, if that is the case. Selfstudier (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you seriously think what I pointed out is a problem? Common name only applies to article titles not body content. There is nothing contradictory between a common name and using the term invasion as a description. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If invasion is not the commonname, why call it that? Selfstudier (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is an invasion and is described as such by reliable sources? Traumnovelle (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then make that argument (for a descriptive title) in an RM. Selfstudier (talk) 20:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No? That doesn't make any sense. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does to me. Selfstudier (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 December 2024

[edit]

Operation Olive Branch → Turkish invasion of northwest Syria – Not usual to use operational title assigned by one of the parties, a more descriptive title is preferred, using this one as per the opening sentence of the lead Selfstudier (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: vague title. Also Operation Olive Branch is the WP:COMMONNAME. Beshogur (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this move. Even among "Afrin operation", "Afrin offensive", "Afrin invasion" search results, the invasion one is the most least one. The problem is with the lead.
Beshogur (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is Afrin offensive (January–March 2018) described as the "initial phase" of Operation Olive Branch. And there was 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria so Turkish (led/backed) offensive of northwest Syria is another idea. Selfstudier (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first one shouldn't even exist imo. It's the same thing. Also (January–March 2018) is absurd since there is no other "Afrin offensive". Beshogur (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opened a merger. Pretty much redundant. For 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, that's competely a different thing. Beshogur (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria, that's competely a different thing Sure, I was referring to the style of the name not the events. Selfstudier (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Per Beshogur, all reliable sources use the term "Operation Olive Branch", even the pro-AANES ones and academics. Applodion (talk) 12:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the common name doesn't need to be accurate/descriptive and there are hundreds of examples to point to on Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then one can hardly object if people complain about it being called an invasion. Selfstudier (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one else has agreed with your view that it can't be called an invasion if the title doesn't contain the term invasion. There is no policy nor guideline that supports your position. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are more sources calling it an operation then that's what it should be called absent a consensus otherwise. The other way of dealing with an issue like this is to add one or more bolded akas to the lead sentence (aka as offensive/assault/whatever). Then you can use the different names with roughly equal frequency and noone will complain. Selfstudier (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources can use the name Operation Olive Branch and refer to it as an invasion, the two aren't mutually exclusive. [17] Traumnovelle (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just said that. Selfstudier (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's invasion according to some POV. It doesn't have characteristics of an invasion. That's all what's it about. Since the Syrian government doesn't even control those areas, did Turkey invade YPG territory? Is YPG a recognized entity? No. Did Turkey invade full scale? No, only with limited land support. Beshogur (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't have the characteristics ... Other than being a militarily transgression on the internationally recognised sovereign territory of another state ... a.k.a. invasion. Next we're going to be calling this a "special military operation". Iskandar323 (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It wasn't controlled by the legal Syrian government back then, but against a militant group. It had Syrian troops more than Turkish one, and part of the operation wasn't from the border to Syria but rebel held territory inside YPG held territory. Invading Syria from Syria? It wasn't a declaration of war. Turkey didn't annex anything from Syria. Thus making this not an invasion. I can understand leftist POV here. Oh the current invasion by the Turkish Armed Forces and Syrian National Army (SNA) in the Kurdish-majority Afrin District of northwest Syria, against the People's Protection Units (YPG) of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) makes more sense to be honest, rather than "invasion of Syria". Beshogur (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Syrian Kurds are Syrians like any other and Turkey never had any business intervening militarily in any way on Syrian soil. Turkey wasn't invited in by Damascus to handle its situation in the north, and per international law that makes it an aggressor and invader. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support changing the current title to something more descriptive and consistent with US intervention in the Syrian civil war and 2024 Israeli invasion of Syria. Alaexis¿question? 22:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, it would go against WP:COMMONNAME and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, as "Operation Olive Branch" is a term used by academic sources, whereas a new, descriptive title would be WP:OR. Applodion (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per MOS:CODENAME, which discourages the use of military codenames as titles in all but the most exceptional of circumstances, and WP:NCWWW, which calls for the when, where, what of events to be described for the sake of recognisability – on which note, the date wouldn't hurt either. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

There is no need for Afrin offensive (January–March 2018). There is one Afrin offensive which makes (January–March 2018) useless. It's basically the same thing with Operation Olive Branch. Beshogur (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI redirect removed by FPSTurkey (talk · contribs). Beshogur (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might be better the other way around, merge this article into the other and rename it (back to) Afrin offensive. Also depends the ongoing RM above. Selfstudier (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly? Not even the common name. See results above + "Operation Olive Branch" 1070 results (google scholar). Beshogur (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A later redirect here Precisely because there is already an article by that name and I already said in the RM above that title supplied by one side of a conflict is not really NPOV. Let's say the other side called it Invasion of the Pigs, we wouldn't use that name either.
I haven't looked up the talk history, I assume there was some sort of discussion about the title back when and that's how we ended up with the fork. Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already redirected here. 90% of the stuff is copy paste from here. You can check yourself. Beshogur (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Operation Olive Branch is the Turkish Government's preferred term, while it is also refered to as Afrin offensive otherwise? correct me if i'm wrong. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's the name by the Turkish government, but Operation Olive Branch is the WP:COMMONNAME in this case. It refers to the same thing. Please compare this revision before reverting back. It's copy paste stuff from here. Beshogur (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not all that familiar with these particular conflicts but if we were talking IP conflict, nowadays there would be a lot of resistance to the use of an official name from one of the sides (most often, editors want to use the operation name assigned by the IDF, no way). So that's my starting point really, and even if the official name is common, if there is a recognizable alternative description, why not use that? I would argue Afrin (something) is more recognizable to more readers than a generic olive branch. The article even calls it that at Operation_Olive_Branch#Afrin_offensive. Selfstudier (talk) 16:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Afrin offensive? Yeah maybe.[18] but (January–March 2018) and another article doesn't make sense. It's a duplicate and there is one Afrin offensive. Beshogur (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Undid merge, there is significant material on that other page, would like consensus first before mass blanking. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Insurgency phase

[edit]

@Applodion: The article is about the operation. Also what's the source for 9 August 2019? Why did it end that day? It doesn't make sense. Beshogur (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Beshogur: I originally restored the old version as the referenced sources stated the Operation Olive Branch was still ongoing, battling the local SDF insurgents after 2018. That was also the reasoning for the inclusion of a "guerrilla phase" in the article per previous discussions. Conversely, it has become clear that the name "Operation Olive Branch" has basically become a term to describe the Turkish occupation of Afrin, with some sources still treating the operation as ongoing as of 2024. The 2019 end-date for the guerrilla campaign was probably added by some anon who took a lack of news as an end date and just edited it, with no one really noticing (sadly, this happens from time to time). However, the "main" operation clearly ended in 2018, and any later operations are better covered in SDF insurgency in northern Syria. Thus, I self-reverted my edit. Applodion (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for understanding. Beshogur (talk) 16:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Olive_Branch&oldid=1267108427"