Talk:Battle of Ras al-Ayn (2019)

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

The word invasion being used not in the main article but in the copy article. Despite being unsourced by 3rd party sources.[edit]

Looks like we got the issue here. KasimMejia (talk) 11:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well all these articles call it an invasion ... how is it not an invasion?
  • "The Turkish Invasion of Syria Shows the U.N. Is Struggling to Keep Up With Humanitarian Crises"

https://time.com/5699596/turkey-syria-offensive-un-humanitarian-crisis/

  • "Trump dismisses Turkey's invasion of Syria: 'It's not our border'"

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-turkey-s-incursion-syria-not-our-problem-calls-n1067391

  • "Putin: Turkish invasion of Syria could release thousands of Isis"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/11/putin-turkish-invasion-of-syria-could-release-hundreds-of-isis-fighters Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Turkey's invasion of Syria puts Islamic State fight on hold at a"

https://www.washingtonpost.com › world › middle_east › 2019/10/11 Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4th link is dead - Looks like editorialized titles in some articles and US and Russian Presidents calling it an invasion does not make it such. The term invasion was discussed in the original article ultimately opposing its inclusion. KasimMejia (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from working on this article[edit]

KasimMejia You appear to not be editing this article in good faith. Please desist from working on it. You have nominated it for deletion, have problem banner tags on it, numerous citation tags, and are now removing various bits of text for various reasons. You are clearly not editing in good faith.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deathlibrarian: Please read better yourself WP:GF because you are violating it yourself when you falsely accuse other of violating it. KasimMejia (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KasimMejiaOk, I would normally assume WP:GF, but you appear to have a history of edit warring and you have removed various parts of this page without discussion. I ask you again, will you please desist from editing this article? Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Results of Battle[edit]

There is current debate going on over whether this was a stalemate or a victory for Turkish allied forces. Please discuss here. SDF forces withdrew because of the ceasefire, however, They were under a lot of pressure from the Turkish forces. Personally I think the result "SDF Withdrawal" is a fitting result, as to indicate that they were defeated militarily is not correct. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia infobox result is set on 3 outcomes. Victory, Inconclusive and Defeat. The Turkish side achieved all of their objectives in the battle and captured the town in a week and a half. The SDF withdrawal did not change the outcome of the battle. XelatSharro should wait for a discussion to end before making a change, I've reverted the edit. Also, no source states that this did not result in a a Turkish Victory. Furthermore the "debate" was an undiscussed change by new account with 2 edits[1] (sock puppet?). KasimMejia (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with XelatSharro - the ownership was decided by "negotiation" between the US/SDF and Turkey, at which point they had to pull back to the 30klm zone, and so leave the town. It wasn't a military victory, The TFSA took the town only after the SDF left because they were required to. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, there are no sources stating this wasn't a victory. Second the result has to be Victory Defeat or Draw. So pick one. Third final note, I'm not gonna revert you due to 1RR but keep in mind next time that changes are made after the discussion. You've made the change right after opening a discussion about it an reverted me saying wait for discussion to be over. Well what's the point of the discussion if you are gonna make undiscussed change anyway? KasimMejia (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I returned it to the previous version made by FPSTurkey...it was that user's suggestion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC). So there are a number of status's proposed "Victory" "Stalemate" and SDF withdrawal. I would agree with FPSTurkey "SDF withdrawal" seems better than Stalemate to me, it more accurately indicates they withdrew because of the ceasefire, as opposed to A Victory status for Turkey, which implies they won through military means. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As for the terms used as a result in the infobox, it can be more varied than those three options - see the infobox for the War_of_1812 for example. Deathlibrarian (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was a war, this is a battle about a town. Which was captured. I don't know how you come to the conclusion that this was anything but a Victory for the side who captured the town. Here is a battle that ended similar (and not 200 years ago) Siege of al-Fu'ah and Kafriya, see its result? Yes, SDF withdrew, you can include that under a note. When it comes to "Result" you have to pick a "Result". Victory-Draw-Defeat. You can't write a result saying. "SDF withdrew". I don't want to go on with this pointless discussion please self revert already and WP:JUSTDROPIT and see WP:CPP. KasimMejia (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KasimMejia I believe the consensus here is with XelatSharro, which I support. Turkey didn't win the battle milatarily, it was won via negotiation, as part of the ceasefire. I would support "Draw" or simply result "SDF withdraws from Town as part of Ceasefire. Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have put a note on the talk pages for both XelatSharro and FPSTurkey asking them to contribute to the discussion, as they have contributed edits to the results box specifically. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but what kind of a nonsense is this? Its a clear victory for the Turkish side. If you withdraw from a town due to an agreement, its an victory for the other side, no matter if it was an cease fire deal. The town was under siege and they had two options left. This is an clear victory, not a ‘’draw’’ Gal17928 (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but its also not a *military victory*. I agree, the end result is the same, but simply calling it a victory is *deceptive* in the way it describes what happenned.The implication is that Turkey defeated the Kurds - they didn't. IMHO its deceptive and innacurate by summarising the result without including a qualifier.Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See Siege of al-Fu'ah and Kafriya for a similar battle that ended in evacuation as part of Syrian Civil War. Reverting "draw" since it's uncited. KasimMejia (talk) 10:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all thanks Deathlibrarian for asking opinion. Anyway, I remember similar edit war over result Deir ez-Zor Governorate clashes (April 2018)! In regard to the battle, there are some undeniable facts about the battle: 1) TFSA captured the city (even though it was a withdrawal) so it would make no sense indicating anything that implied the SDF gained from this battle (putting "stalemate" indicates that it preserved the status quo) 2) SDF withdrew rather than military defeat inflicted by TFSA but still they captured the city. I don't know how to settle this issue, as in a way "Turkish Armed Forces and Allies victory" is accurate because Turkey did win and the city was captured. Also there is precedent as KasimMejia said, see Siege of al-Fu'ah and Kafriya. Thus I won't necessarily challenge the current state of the article, but I will propose one potential replacement. Articles on some battles like Battle of Sakarya list multiple results to indicate the tactical/strategic solution (so for this battle it would be: "Military stalemate, Turkish-FSA strategic victory"), maybe this could be good for the article but I don't see problem with current state due to what actually happened and Wikipedia standards. FPSTurkey (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't a military stalemate, read the article. SDF was fully sieged in the town before agreeing to withdraw. KasimMejia (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree FPSTurkey - I mean my point was that you should have as much information there for the user as possible. So a simple "Victory" is deceptive. I think the multiple results would be good, though I'm not sure about "Military stalemate, Turkish-FSA strategic victory" how about "Militarily inconclusive, Turkish-FSA strategic victory"? Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 17 November 2019[edit]

I believe a "See also" section should be added with links to the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria and the fist Battle of Ras al-Ayn. Sisuvia (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Sisuvia (talk) 06:59, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, these are in the templates at the bottom of the article already, and both are already linked in the article, a "see also" section is for articles that are not referenced already within the article but may be of interest/relevances. Fish+Karate 10:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Ras_al-Ayn_(2019)&oldid=1210643544"