Talk:Operation Olive Branch

Requested move 2 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus is in favor of "Operation Olive Branch". GGT's google scholar results show that it is the WP:COMMONNAME among reliable sources. TataofTata is right that this is the Turkish name for the operation, hence presents their POV, but Bondegezou showed there is ample precedence on wikipedia for using "Operation X" as titles. (non-admin closure) VR _talk 00:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

---

Operation Olive Branch → 2018 Turkish offensive into north-western Syria – Current title violates WP:POVTITLE as it is a purely Turkish point of view on the offensives. Nor does Turkey's odd choices of operation names properly describe or title the events for readers to grasp what is happening. With the developments of a potential future offensive again, the convoluted operation names potentially hides away the broader occupation. So I propose a consistent naming structure for the current Turkish occupation and offensives/invasions that have taken place to better fulfil WP:CRITERIA:

Turkish occupation of northern Syria

Operation Euphrates Shield > ---> 2016 Turkish offensive into north-western Syria

Operation Olive Branch ---> 2018 Turkish offensive into north-western Syria

2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria

Note: Turkey's president in 2019 threatened to flood Europe with refugees if European leaders/nations continued to call Turkey's offensives as an invasion hence some sources trying to be politically correct may be used as supposed reference to the current title, but this threat should be factored in to avoid the bias. "Erdogan threatens to flood Europe with 3.6 million refugees if EU calls Turkish operation in Syria an 'invasion'". 10 October 2019. TataofTata (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Move to Afrin offensive or 2018 Afrin offensive instead as it is both sufficiently descriptive and is the most commonly used name for the operation. The scope of this article and the existence of a separate Afrin offensive (January–March 2018) article present a problem since Operation Olive Branch is the name for the January–March 2018 Afrin offensive. Operation Olive Branch ended with the capture of Afrin; the following insurgency was not part of the named operation. Lightspecs (talk) 23:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You're quite right, however my objective was to keep the structure in line with Turkey's other offensives for a better encyclopedia. What about 2018 Turkish Afrin offensive? --TataofTata (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose: weak reasonings above. Per WP:COMMONNAME.
  • [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)

Beshogur (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Most of these results where "Operation Olive Branch" is the main term come from Turkish sources. "Afrin offensive" is the most common term used in international media, with "Olive Branch" being mentioned as Turkey's name in quotes. Lightspecs (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lightspecs: I could show others without any quotations mark: BBC, Reuters, AJ. Beshogur (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The al-Jazeera article referred to "Turkey's operation in Syria's Afrin" and the "Afrin offensive" before mentioning Operation Olive Branch (and adding "so-called" before it).

In most Reuters articles on the operation, "Afrin offensive" is used in both the title and within the body without any qualifiers, while references to "Operation Olive Branch" usually mention that it's Turkey's name, often with quotes around it. Likewise for BBC (1, 2). Lightspecs (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Lightspecs: I'm not arguing the other names such as "Afrin offensive/operation", in Turkish there are alternate names such as "Afrin harekatı" or "Afrin operasyonu". But it's totally misleading. Is it about Afrin area(?), the town(?). The search results are here, "Afrin offensive" gives me 16,400 results. So we should stick on common name. Also [5] 20 BBC mentions against [6] 8; same goes for Reuters. If you look carefully, most of those are not in quotes, and we can see that it's used as a proper name. Beshogur (talk) 12:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Beshogur. It is the commonly used name, including by international media and researchers. Even pro-Kurdish sources, like Ed Nash (author of Kurdish Armour against ISIS and YPG veteran), use the name. The title also does not violate WP:POVTITLE any more than any other "Operation X" title (though pro-Kurdish sources usually add something about the name by cynical, but such comments are often also applied to other names for operations in other conflicts). Applodion (talk) 10:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

We do not use "Operation Iraqi Freedom" for Iraq War or 2003 invasion of Iraq do we, so it clearly violates WP:POVTITLE on that basis. The operation name of the offensive is certainly a POV of the Turkish side. It's also going to be highlighted in articles to quote what turkey calls its offensive so these kind of skewed results is certainty a manipulative argument. I found so many out of context and Turkish sources in his results, nearly every Turkish media outlet is there and they regularly release articles on these topics so take with a grain of salt. --TataofTata (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia has multiple articles called "Operation something", e.g. Operation Market Garden, Operation Entebbe, Operation Mincemeat etc. These Operation names represent one side's perspective, yet I see no objections to them, so I don't think there's any general injunction against the form "Operation something". Articles using that name focus on the specific military operations concerned rather than broader issues, and that distinction may be something to think about here. We should be guided by what reliable sources say, as per WP:COMMONNAME -- and we do there need to take into account what sources from different perspectives say. Bondegezou (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

"Operation Iraqi Freedom" is not used because "Iraq War" and "2003 invasion" have become more commonly used, especially in academia (among other reasons, the war and invasion cannot be named "Operation Iraqi Freedom" because each contingent involved in the coalition used its own "Operation X" name such as Operation Telic). Again, contrast this to "Operation Olive Branch" which even pro-SDF sources use. Applodion (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: Those are hardly similar and actually backs me up. A hostage rescue operation is not comparable, nor is a deception operation during war time.. These are respectfully operations, same as other second world war operations that took place. Look at Saar Offensive or 1939–1940 Winter Offensive for example.

I will not add any further as I am just trying to clear up misunderstandings, but there's a few things to factor here. "Operation Olive Branch" is a non-neutral title even if they do not admit. Secondly there is no solid grounds to claim it's more common, I'm sure the sources Beshogur believes I do not take seriously while alternatively sources for example from the US White House statement which stated "...Government of Turkey to conduct a military offensive into northeast Syria.." he chooses to ignore (these are actual reliable sources). "even pro-SDF sources use" is just speculating, same as claiming turkish occupied areas are self-governed or military "intervention" is a better term than offensive. Objectively to be ambiguous IMO.

WP:CRITERIA - "In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains...Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Concision, Consistency." Simply for a better encyclopedia on the whole topic. --TataofTata (talk) 17:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

So in wikipedia, we should move everything accordingly to the white house? Also the term operation is not a pov title. See reactions sections, almost every country calls it "operation". If you're against the name "Olive Branch". That's something else. Beshogur (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Operation Olive Branch" is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME in WP:RS. Google Scholar results are very clear: 614 results for Operation Olive Branch (and a further 115 for "Olive Branch Operation") vs. 52 results for Afrin offensive (86 for "invasion of Afrin"). WP:POVTITLE clearly allows the use of such names in such circumstances, and this isn't even a POV title, it's just a codename. If the bulk of the English-language scholarship on this issue is from Turkey, that's also tough luck - it doesn't change the way we should be approaching this per policy. --GGT (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Google Scholar does not count what sources calls the offensive by what title or such, it simply counts the hits it finds. That means every source referring to an invasion, offensive, military attack, etc would end up quoting Turkey's codename of the offensive at least once and as you admit the bulk of the results are coming from Turkey, a place that threatened the EU with refugees if they called it an invasion and also locks up academics for the same reasons. It's fair to say they are not so reliable, especially when looking at it and finding stuff like: "Ankara initiated the Operation Olive Branch together with the Free Syrian Army against ISIS and PKK/YPG in Afrin of Syria". Or finding a play by Ewan MacColl called "Operation Olive Branch" in 1947.

Also I suggest if you're going to state the obvious such as "it's just a codename" you should be specific and state that it's devised by Turkey so as to not be presenting incomplete or half-truths. That is where a point of view originates from, it's a codename that Turkey named its offensive that ultimately resulted in taking over Afrin we should be cautious in calling an invasion/offensive by its codename for obvious reasons. Vague google results are not WP:COMMONNAME, major news outlets are:

• Associated Press, Turkey says no turning back from offensive in Syria - [7]
• BBC, Syria offensive: Turkish troops 'capture villages' in Afrin - BBC News - [8]
• The Guardian, Turkey primed to start offensive against US-backed Kurds in Syria | Turkey | The Guardian - [9]
• CNN, Tillerson 'concerned' at Turkey's Syria offensive - CNN - [10]

--TataofTata (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that 1) the proposer replying to each and every argument in the discussion with multiple paragraphs is hardly constructive 2) the fact that you followed my edits after I opposed your RM and reverted me on Kars Province, an article which you had never previously edited, is unacceptable, bordering wikihounding. Please don't do that again, not to me, not to any other participants in this discussion. --GGT (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@GGT: 1) I've not been replying to everything, that's not untrue. This is a somewhat complex topic and a clarification to your half-true statement which everyone has a right to hear out and I'm in no way being unconstructive when it was to dismiss my point in a misguided way. If what you said was bulletproof I wouldn't have much to say and I'd probably change my opinion too, especially if it's more than just another attempt at using vague google results.

2) I reverted you on Kars Province because you removed Kurdish and Armenian versions of the province name. I follow many Kurdish and Armenian towns and areas so it in my watch list. I think you're making it out to be something that it's clearly not. Please just stay on topic and do not try and focus on the user here. I also suggest not to go around doing that. --TataofTata (talk) 15:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not see a consensus emerging to support changing the article name. TataofTata, have you considered adding some material to the article about the language used and, for example, stuff like: "Erdogan threatens to flood Europe with 3.6 million refugees if EU calls Turkish operation in Syria an 'invasion'". 10 October 2019.? That would be a way of acknowledging these issues. Bondegezou (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I simply wanted to improve the structure of all these offensives in a more readable and common known format, not by Turkey's codename. It may be worth notifying other users who previously voted in the last vote, as there are already two which have been involved already here? As for mentioning what Erdogan said, yes that would be good. There is also already the section on 'Restrictions of free expression and arrests in Turkey'. --TataofTata (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible resolution regarding infobox losses

@TRAVERA1: Seeing as you are (rightfully) still dissatisfied with the infobox losses, and we didn't find a common ground during our last discussion, I want to offer another possible resolution to this dispute. How about we apply the Russian invasion of Ukraine style? Namely, we remove all loss claims from the infobox. Then, we add the note "Reports vary widely, see § Casualties for details." with a link to the casualty section, where all loss estimates are properly explained and every reader can carefully judge which claim is most trustworthy. What do you think? Applodion (talk) 18:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Its just that SOHR sources dont match up with the infobox

https://www.syriahr.com/en/121535/ https://www.syriahr.com/en/136684/ - "616 FSA killed" The pages doesnt mention 616 FSA killed at all

https://www.syriahr.com/en/132599/ https://www.syriahr.com/en/136684/ - "96 TAF killed" The pages doesnt mention 96 TAF killed at all TRAVERA1 (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

And again, "terorsehitleri" is by far the most reliable source we have for TAF losses. It has recorded every single TAF kia since the 1970s, Including cause of death, place of death, place of birth, place where they were buried at, their rank, what level of training they have, age, unit name, pictures, name of their father, name of their mother, married or not, even places their names were given to... But in a past conversation you said Its unreliable because the owner of the site met with a deputy once. Thats like saying Trump meets with Putin, Putin says a number of his casualties in the war of X, and the claim becomes (American Claim) because Putin met Trump once.

SDF reports are highly unreliable, they outnumbered the TAF forces there by 2 times and killed 3/6 of turkish forces in the region, yet they somehow still lose.. TRAVERA1 (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@TRAVERA1: This SOHR article, when talking about the pro-Turkish KIA, states "698, the number of members of the Turkish forces and the rebel and Islamic factions including 85 Turkish soldiers". This means 613 dead SNA troops. The other article talks about three more being killed soon after, so it's 616 overall. The same kind of addition also happened for the other two articles regarding Turkish KIAs. Regarding "terorsehitleri", we can add their numbers, but only if the terorsehitleri articles actually mention the numbers in question. For instance, this terorsehitleri article mentions 72 dead Turkish soldiers in the Afrin area, but also includes part of the SDF insurgency in northern Syria in its timeframe.
Either way, can't we just move this whole stuff out of the infobox and into the casualty section? All this confusion could be avoided by not having everything crammed into the infobox. Applodion (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

including 85 Turkish soldiers

There are thousands of Turkish and Turkmen soldiers in the FSA. It does not specifically say "Turkish soldiers from the Turkish Armed Forces". TRAVERA1 (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

"mentions 72 dead Turkish soldiers in the Afrin area"

Thats about Operation Euphrates Shield, not Olive Branch. TRAVERA1 (talk) 16:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@TRAVERA1: Look, we can endlessly discuss which sources are good or not (and the terorsehitleri source for 72 KIA does state that 72 soldiers were martyred in "Zeytin Dalı Harekatı'nın", i.e. Operation Olive Branch). I highly doubt that SOHR would call Turkmen fighters in the FSA "Turkish soldiers". Either way, this does not solve the issue. However, by moving this content out of the infobox, it can be presented more fairly. For instance, if you can find sources disputing the SDF's numbers, you could add such criticism as text in the section. These nuances are not possible in the infobox. Applodion (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

"(and the terorsehitleri source for 72 KIA does state that 72 soldiers were martyred in "Zeytin Dalı Harekatı'nın", i.e. Operation Olive Branch"

What it actually says there is:

"Fırat Kalkanı Harekâtındaki 72 şehidimizin anısına ilk taarruz Hava Kuvvetlerimize ait 72 uçakla yapıldı. Kahraman Mehmetçik de Afrin bölgesine doğu, kuzey ve batı yönlerinden kara harekâtına başladı."

Translated:

"In memory of our 72 martyrs in Operation Euphrates Shield, the first attack was made with 72 aircraft belonging to our Air Force. The Heroic Turkish Soldier also started a land operation in the Afrin region from the east, north and west." TRAVERA1 (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@TRAVERA1: Do you have a different link than me? Or is there some hidden content I didn't see? I'm genuinely curious, as it clearly states that 72 soldiers died in Operation Olive Branch in the article in linked above: "Milli Savunma Bakanlığı, sosyal medya hesabından Zeytin Dalı Harekatı'nın 5. yılında şehit ve gazileri andı.Milli Savunma Bakanlığı, 20 Ocak 2018 tarihinde başlayan harekatın 5'inci yılı dolayısıyla açıklama yaptı.Harekatı başarıyla icra eden Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri personelini anan Bakanlık, açıklamada, "Canları pahasına mücadele eden, ülkemizin ve milletimizin huzuru ve güvenliği için gözünü kırpmadan şehadete yürüyen kahramanlarımıza Allah'tan rahmet, kahraman gazilerimize de sağlıklı, mutlu ve uzun ömürler diliyoruz" ifadelerini kullandı.Operasyonda 72 Askerimiz Şehit oldu.5 yılın özetini de inografik olarak sosyal medya hesabından paylaşan Milli Savunma Bakanlığı, 7 bin 314 teröristin etkisiz hale getirilirken, 2 bin kilometrekarelik alanın da güvenli hale getirildiğini kaydetti."
Anyway, can we please move this stuff into the separate section? Applodion (talk) 10:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I was talking about the picture in the link u sent TRAVERA1 (talk) 14:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@TRAVERA1: Oh, I was talking about the text. So this is odd. Which is it now, Olive Branch or Euphrates Shield? Applodion (talk) 14:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The man who wrote the article probably accidentally wrote it that way, 74 soldiers were actually killed in operation euphrates shield. The poster is also made by the national defense department. TRAVERA1 (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@TRAVERA1: Well, this makes sense, but it also illustrates how quickly these kinds of errors can pop up. Do you have a better article by terorsehitleri?
And what do you think about my proposal of moving the losses out of the infobox? Applodion (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I need to repeat this again,

Terorsehitleri has every, single, turkish soldier killed by terror organizations as far as 1970 including their name, picture, place of death, date of death, cause of death, the place they were buried at, the last place they were serving in, their rank, their birth date, their birth place, name of father, name of mother, their level of education, their marital status, number of their children, background and the places their names were given to (like schools etc.) Including some civillians and teachers aswell.

Search up the dates olive branch was conducted (january-march 2018) and look at their cause of deaths, you will either see:

Suriye Afrin Operasyonunda...

Türk Silahlı Kuvvetleri'nin Suriye'nin Afrin bölgesinde yürüttüğü 'Zeytin Dalı Harekatı'nda...

or something in those lines.

Stack all of them up; 45.

If you want me to give you all of their names, i will. TRAVERA1 (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@TRAVERA1: If you are able to collect every single one of them with a proper source, we probably can add them. Applodion (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Invasion

[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

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

Calling invasion looks here correct per RS Shadow4dark (talk) 06:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

The PRIF blog is a WP:NEWSBLOG. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Page protected

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)

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)

[18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]

Seems fine to call this an invasion, plenty of RS describing it as such. Lavipao (talk) 06:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

  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)

  You haven't provided any evidence of this being a minority view. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  Raw google numbers are meaningless here. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  The reactions of countries are meaningless, google numbers are meaningless but cherry picked sources are meaningful. Beshogur (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  And all three of the first sources from that search query also use the term invasion... Traumnovelle (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  And your argument has failed to convince anyone because you're not providing sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  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.

  • European Parliament: Turkey's military operation in Syria and its impact on relations with the EU
  • CNN: Turkish operation in Syria undercuts US gains in ISIS fight
  • AJ: Turkey’s operation in Syria’s Afrin: The key players
  • NYT: Turkey Begins Operation Against U.S.-Backed Kurdish Militias in Syria
  • Reuters: Turkey's military operation against Kurdish YPG in Afrin

  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)

  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)

  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)

  According to the OED an incursion is an invasion: [25] Traumnovelle (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@The Bushranger: can we protect 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria as well, Lavipao (talk · contribs) is POV pushing yet again.[26] Beshogur (talk) 11:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Go ctrl+f the main page, it's not like manipulating this. Beshogur (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)