Talk:Russia–Turkey proxy conflict

Three Turkish soldiers killed by Russia

Information about this event on 9 February 2017 should be included to the page. A strange IP address doesn't let me to add this to the page. Nochyyy (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It does not belong there and stop vanldalizing it. The three aoldiers killed happaned a much later time then this article was about. Besides that, it already has its own page where it is more detailed Bzaatronto (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It's about "Russo-Turkish confrontation in Syria" and should be included here, I warn you, continuing in this manner will cause that you get blocked again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nochyyy (talk • contribs) 17:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Then you should find another user to get it right. The date of this article is far beyond the current event. If you can't get your will from this, threatining someone with false acusations will get you in block as well Bzaatronto (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2017

In the Belligerents infobox Czech republic is mentioned on Russian-Syrian side. Some news webpage is cited as a source which talks about support showed by Czech president. Yes, Czech president is supporter of Putin (or Kremel) and he is the commander in chief of Czech armed forces, but he has no executive power. That rests with the prime minister and defence minister, who showed zero support for Russian activities. Also Czech republic is in no way what so ever involved in the conflict. It's hard to cite any sources here since ther aren't any. Only maybe how the czech government works Politics_of_the_Czech_Republic. FanousF (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. El_C 16:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 25 July 2020

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 section.

---

Moved to Russia–Turkey proxy conflict (endash rather than hyphen) by Thepharoah17. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 23:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Russo-Turkish confrontation in Syria and Libya → Russia-Turkey proxy conflict – Article name is unnecessarily long and academic/journalist sources do not refer to the dispute under current name.

Sources referring to dispute as proxy conflict:

• [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

PanNostraticism (talk) 09:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support. That sounds much better. I was thinking about changing it to a similar title but wasn’t sure whether I could get consensus. Thepharoah17 (talk) 07:40, 27 July 2020 (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.

Israel's alliance with Azerbaijan doesn't mean it reduces hostility with Turkey

For the people who are trying to fix and remove Israel's role on allying with Russia-backed forces they seem do not understand that Turkish-Israeli relations have deteriorated since 2010s. I have addressed these issues, but if this is still being fixed to serve Turkish propaganda, then I rest my case. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

This page is a mess

For starters the infobox makes it appear as if France and the US are "backing" opposite sides in an armed conflict. This is not a grounded characterization of what is going on at all.--Calthinus (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The matter is not simple. Israel is also playing a very edgy role here, it is supporting Azerbaijan against Armenia in Karabakh; yet the same time it wants to contain Turkish expansionism as Israel–Turkey relations have become increasingly deteriorated so it voluntarily backs Russia when it comes to Libya, Syria and Kurds. Likewise, the United States have an increasingly tense relationship with Turkey, but still most American lawmakers call to preserve alliance with Ankara because it dislikes Russia even more so. I can't blame if France is, for some reasons, siding with Russia and her allies, as Franco–Turkish relations have also deteriorated. This is just a small mess of the much larger picture. ZaDoraemonzu (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

As for this edit, the United States doesn't support Russia in the Russia–Turkey proxy conflict. Criticism of Turkey doesn't mean that Pompeo or Congress intended to support Russia, please see Wikipedia:No original research. -- Tobby72 (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Move portions to other articles, or what else?

As I see, the article is tagged as "original research" and possibly biased. To resolve this, maybe portions of the article should be moved/shifted to other existing, more suitable articles. If not, then how about trimming details down, or what else can be done about the content? (listed for rfc) --George Ho (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC); originally, 08:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

It might be worth considering removing the infobox, which is not a great way of summarizing highly complex conflicts such as this one. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox military conflict

{{Infobox military conflict}} is the current template for the infobox. Sudden removal is suggested at another discussion. Shall the infobox be removed without replacement for an indefinite amount of time? --George Ho (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I went bold and removed the infobox. Well, I don't mind reinsertion, but I think the "military conflict" shouldn't be used if it's not a great way of summarizing highly complex conflicts (quoting from Indy beetle). --George Ho (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Strongly Support Infobox I reverted the removal of the infobox as said in the discussion section. I strongly think that it needs to be kept, because many people won't be able to read an entire article on the subject in one sitting. The infobox provides a concise summary of Turkey and Russia's respective proxy groups. If they desire further context, they can read the article. By the way, Turkey opposes Transnistria, as it declared support for Moldova's territorial integrity (check the source). --User:Arandomguy12345 (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

As per MOS:INFOBOXUSE, an infobox isn't mandatory in any article. Given the current widespread inclusion of countries that haven't deployed soldiers in the conflict or even provided material support to any of the combatants, the infobox as it is now is nothing but a fantasy bordering on disinformation. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Either it should be removed completely or the combatants listed should be stripped down to those that have actually deployed troops in the conflict. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 16:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Is there really a proxy conflict?

It seems this article is based on speculation rather than an actual conflict between the two countries. There were two other articles that were deleted recently alleging there was a proxy conflict between Turkey with France and Saudi Arabia. It seems there is more of a dispute than an actual conflict. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is a mess. Jr8825 • Talk 17:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I'm not sure deleting the article is ideal, as the last time it was proposed there was no consensus. But it doesn't seem a proxy conflict started over a shootdown of a Russian jet. That's not how proxy conflicts usually start. That's normally how wars start, but both Russia and Turkey resolved the issue not long after. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The article is a mess, but whats happening in the caucuses, especially between Armenia and Azerbaijan, seems to be a proxy conflict to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flalf (talk • contribs) 05:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

But that is one conflict. Whereas the articles about Iran's proxy conflicts with Israel and Saudi Arabia stretches across multiple regions and events. The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan is just one place. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Another issue is the infobox listing of countries where there are no sources and in fact, very little info and the sources used don't really define the concept of a proxy conflict between Turkey and Russia. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Russia And Turkey have opened a military base to secure peace in Nagorno Karabakh after the last war. Doesn't seem like a proxy conflict. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Is your issue relating to the topic as a whole or to the specific semantics of the article title? The conflicting geopolitical interests of the Russian and Turkish governments across multiple spheres seems well attested in sources. CMD (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It's all of it. It's true that all countries even allies have conflicting geopolitical interests but the difference with this article is that it attests there is a proxy war between Russia and Turkey. If there is one, why would the two countries open a joint military base? A true proxy conflict would be the one Iran is having with Israel and Saudi Arabia. A lot of the sources used are alleging there is a conflict simply because some countries are in agreement with Russia and Turkey over certain issues, such as the UK congratulated Azerbaijan on winning the last Nagorno Karabakh war, therefore it's on Turkey's side of this conflict. That doesn't mean the UK is taking a side. And countries listed in the infobox as I mentioned right above are unsourced. For example, how are Lebanon and Qatar on opposite sides of this conflict? We need sources. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The reasons for opening the military base despite the conflict is the very topic of the article you cite (and managing potential escalation is not unusual at all). The article clearly emphasise how unusual the base is given the geopolitical situation between Russia and Turkey. I'd agree with you that much of the infobox is garbage, but that's a different question to the relevance of the topic as a whole. CMD (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

But that doesn't prove a proxy conflict exists. Both countries have their own goals in Syria. America and Russia are on opposite ends in Syria, does that mean there's a proxy conflict between the two? Obviously not. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: I've harboured suspicions about this article being overly simplistic (and possibly OR) about its labelling of the Russia–Turkey relationship as a proxy conflict. I came across it via a discussion at 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war involving an edit warrior who had been repeatedly removing references to the 2020 NK war from this article, and I remember being struck by how this article lacks both a nuanced narrative (or any narrative at all, really) and strong sources. There are plenty of reliable sources attesting to Russia and Turkey being involved in proxy wars in Libya/Syria, but those are descriptions of those specific wars (e.g. [12]), and equally there are plenty of sources attesting to the two countries being in a form of strategic competition mixed with pragmatic compromise. However, I wasn't convinced, from an admittedly brief bit of research, that there's strong sourcing to describe it as a consistent proxy "conflict" (there's some, such as this LSE blog, but I don't find it particularly authoritative (the author in this case is a PHD student) and it seems limited in quantity (a search for Turkey Russia proxy conflict of my university's catalogue of online journals turns up very little). As it stands, the article's sources are heavily reliant on news reports, which makes me worry that some of the article's assertions could be editors' interpretations of specific events' significance (and consequently OR). There appears to be a distinct lack of sourcing from foreign affairs/international relations experts, although the only way to check this would be to dig through the cited news articles and see if they quote experts describing events in the context of a proxy conflict. There are bunch of academic-looking articles on this topic (e.g. [13], [14], which might be relevant here, but care would have to be taken to ensure their publications/authors are neutral and reliable. Jr8825 • Talk 22:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I came across this article similarly, and agree with the points. I tried to differentiate this in my initial question here by referring to the "specific semantics of the article title" and the "topic as a whole". I've had similar results when looking through sources, many discuss a competition or rivalry which includes smaller conflicts, but don't label the whole relationship as a proxy conflict. Another issue I've found is that because some events are so recent, there's fewer scholarly sources tying them together. Quite a lot on the 2015-2017 events, but the 2020 events seem so far better represented in more news type articles (or briefings such as [15], although I don't have full access to it). CMD (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

My inclination would be to propose a merge with Russia–Turkey relations, but looking again through the article as it is, I honestly don't see much here, if anything, that's worth keeping - it's a mostly a SYNTH-infused list of events which it asserts are related to the alleged conflict. The only significant quantity of prose is in the 'parties involved' section, and there's no indication that much of the information there is specifically relevant to the Russia–Turkey relationship, let alone to a conflict between the two. After reading through the previous AfD, I'm in agreement with WikiCleanerMan's initial impression, I think a new AfD would be the best way forward. To prevent a no-con the nominator would need to do some digging through expert sources first to ensure there really is as little sourcing as it appears, and they'd need to present/explain the evidence more unambiguously than in the previous nomination. The argument for keep seems to have been extremely weak (an assertion that there are sources without any hard evidence to back this up, and advice to look for several different keywords to find resources; Russian-Turkish Proxy Conflict, Russian-Turkish Proxy War..., which is likely to muddle results by turning up sources which are discussing specific, individual wars (Syria, Libya) rather than an (in)direct conflict between Russia and Turkey themselves. If this argument had been challenged I suspect the closer would have found a consensus in favour of deletion. What are your thoughts, Chipmunkdavis, does a new AfD sound like the best process going forward? @WikiCleanerMan, if you'd like to go ahead with a nomination, be my guest. Otherwise I can try to assemble some sources and nominate it myself. Jr8825 • Talk 11:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

An AfD arguing for a merge would probably have better success than deletion. There are sources on the matter, so unless the argument is for WP:TNT full deletion feels unlikely to pass. That said, seems to be consensus here that there's a lot of synth, so cutting that down might help with the eventual decision. I'll start with the infobox. CMD (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@WikiCleanerMan: This is not a reliable source (or a particularly believable one). Jr8825 • Talk 00:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I only was stating that particular citation against the concept of what the article is alleging. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Second nomination for deletion

Jr8825, CMD, feel free to join in. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2021 (UTC)