This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Euphrates Shield article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
A news item involving Operation Euphrates Shield was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 28 August 2016. |
WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Operation Euphrates Shield, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello. Twice now my attempts at trimming the infobox down to its bare essentials have been reverted by disruptive editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines, jumping the gun, failing to assume good faith, and instead tunneling in on supposed vandalism. The simple fact is that this article looks ridiculous and in all likelihood only defers potential readers with its excessive bloating. Is this what hoarding looks like? Don't get me started on the continued removal of maintenance headers.
Firstly, the TOC is stretched to its limits with overly long and unnecessarily descriptive subsection titles, and it borderline-defeats its navigational purpose. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the infobox examplifies just about everything an infobox shouldn't be. "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize ( and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article ( an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)."
While its contents are relevant to the article, it includes lots of statistics otherwise not talked about in prose, just as it contains many more commanders, leaders, units, and other bits of information that fail to appear in the article text itself. " Long bodies of text, or very detailed statistics, belong in the article body." Also, an article's quality may be judged by its inclusion of references in its infobox. An infobox's contents should ideally already be part of the article itself, and thus these very same contents do not require references in an infobox, lest they be redundant. The fact that so many of this article's references orginate from the infobox is telling, and perhaps we should consider the possiblity that this may not be a very good article at all.
I propose we set an example here and try to curtail this disease that is gripping Wikipedia (including WP:RECENTISM.) Jay D. Easy ( talk) 16:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved.
Consensus not to move per WP:COMMONNAME.( non-admin closure) Havelock Jones ( talk) 23:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Operation Euphrates Shield → 2016 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:
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) 18:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Dear, they ar already mentioned did you read it? Adding them again is not really helpful. Please explain your edits. Shadow4dark ( talk) 22:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
From my lengthy protection summary that didn't fully make it: IP, you've not engaged the talk page (here). Why is that? The lead paragraph already says "The Turkish military and Turkey-aligned Syrian rebel groups, some of which used the Free Syrian Army label, fought against the forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) as well as against the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)." Do you [not see that?] El_C 07:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
If lead paragraph mentions them anyway, why are they mentioned again in the first sentence?
First sentence: "Operation Euphrates Shield (Turkish: Fırat Kalkanı Harekâtı) was a cross-border military operation conducted by the Turkish Armed Forces and Turkey-aligned Syrian opposition groups in the Syrian Civil War which led to the Turkish occupation of northern Syria."
The only thing that is missing in the first sentence is who it was done against. It mentions one side of the conflict (TAF and aligned Syrian groups), where it happened (Syrian civil war) and the result (occupation of northern Syria) but it doesn't mention who it was done against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.230.181.172 ( talk) 11:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)