Jump to content

Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 46

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48→Archive 50

No consensus

Despite the discussion above that clearly didn't have a consensus, China is still on the list of support for sending one military commander to Syria and supporting it vocally. Iraq is on the list of support for bombing ISIS targets in Syria that committed a terrorist attack in their country. Recently there was a lengthy discussion to keep Israel out despite also bombing targets and supporting it vocally, if not more. What gives? It's hard not to detect bias here.. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

There was consensus to add China in August 2016 (none opposed): the proposal to remove China (above) is what has not achieved consensus. Please see above to inform yourself about the nature of China's military support (it's not a lone admiral's visit). Agree about Israel, but if you want to campaign for its inclusion, the solution, surely, does not lie in removing China. Albrecht (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
I removed China from the list of support because it is obvious that their support (if any) is very limited and there was nobody in the above to have a discussion. Since it seems that the number of people who are opposed to having China is is more than those who want it there, I removed China till we can reach a consensus. I also agree with you that Iraq should be removed, too. Nochyyy (talk) 06:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
This is absolutely not how you proceed with a change like this. You achieve consensus, then you make the change. There is nothing remotely approaching consensus in the discussion above (2 for vs. 2 against, even if consensus is not a straw poll). Reverted to stable version. Albrecht (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

Can people have a look at the Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (September 2017–present) article? This is updated daily with items reported by Al-Masdar News. Numerous discussions at the Reliable Source noticeboard have noted that this is not a reliable source, and certainly not for anything controversial. It absolutely should not be used as a source for claims about rebels, for example. I added "better source" tags to some of the claims sourced from Al-Masdar, but these have all been removed, with no discussion at the talk page. (I am also unsure of the notability of all the bullet points in the article. Should Wikipedia even have such a detailed daily timeline?) BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

"Article too long to read and mavigate comfortably"

The banner saying the article is too long has been here for about 3 years. Have there been any discussion between editors on what to do about this problem?

I'm not here to judge but do the frequent editors here even care? Do you care that this article is loaded with useless details preventing readers from even bothering to read your page?

You read the banner everyday telling you for once just remove something useless instead of adding. Maybe listen to it.Crewcamel (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, recently the article was trimmed from 400k to as small as 310k (by myself and by user:Volunteer Marek and user:NuclearWizard) and we may consider various options to further reduce the size. See Talk:Syrian Civil War/Archive 44#Shortening the article for previous discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 12:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but it's just herculean right now. Many of the sections have been compacted properly, and others haven't. It's further complicated by the fact real improvements actually need to remove data. I'm gradually trying to beat back the article; I just made some changes in this direction. Nuke (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
@NuclearWizard: please wait with the restructuring and data removal; i think it would be better to split entire sections into separate articles in line with the structure of campaignbox.GreyShark (dibra) 07:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I fully agree, @Greyshark09:, and okay I'll wait. Nuke (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
My previous work included splitting Civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War, Early insurgency phase of the Syrian Civil War and 2012–13 escalation of the Syrian Civil War. So the current campaignbox structure is as following:
1. Civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War March-July 2011
2. Early insurgency phase of the Syrian Civil War July 2011-April 2012
3. 2012–13 escalation of the Syrian Civil War April 2012-December 2013
4. Rise of Islamist groups January-September 2014
5. US intervention (and further inter-rebel conflict) September 2014-Septemeber 2015
6. Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War September 2015-March 2016
7. Aleppo escalation and Turkish intervention March 2016-December 2016
8. Post-Aleppo and decline of ISIL (December 2016–present)
It looks like phases 1-3 are largely stable, but regarding 4 & 5 - you merged them into one section in the article. It makes sense though, as US intervention practically took place in the midst of inter-rebel conflict and thus was a part of it and not a separate phase. One solution is to update Inter-rebel conflict during the Syrian Civil War and perhaps rename it to 2014-15 Inter-rebel conflict phase of the Syrian Civil War, merging much material from Syrian Civil War and make US intervention a subtopic of it; we will also have to merge 2 campaignboxes into 1. Another solution is to retain those phases as separate, though still merging much material into Inter-rebel conflict during the Syrian Civil War and into US intervention, keeping only the abstracts here.GreyShark (dibra) 17:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
@Editor abcdef: - this is in continuation to our previous discussion several months ago.GreyShark (dibra) 17:56, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
There are several was the article could be condensed further if necessary. I proposed earlier this that the Belligerents section could be trimmed with some it's contents relocated to List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War (which could then be moved to Belligerents of the Syrian Civil War or something like that). We could also further trim the Timeline section and move some of it's content into Course of events of the Syrian Civil War (which is out of date anyway) and/or trim the Impact section and create a new article titled Impact of the Syrian Civil War. Charles Essie (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Course of events of the Syrian Civil War is redundant; it should better be deleted as clone of timeline articles. I would support splitting the belligerents section as proposed by you.GreyShark (dibra) 12:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC #2

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion is strong consensus opposed to the proposal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphim System (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

An awkward situation was created as RfC at Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War was closed in complete contrast with the Syrian Civil War main page community consensus (herewith "consensus") including the most recent above listed RfC concerning the alleged role of Israel in the Syrian Civil War. So far, we have a solid consensus not to count Israel as belligerent nor supporter at the Syrian Civil War page, but it appears that other Syrian Civil War related pages are becoming confused - one page claiming this and the other claiming that, with much lower editorial participation in decisions. This doesn't seem to be logical and consistent and hence I would like to ask editors whether the consensus achieved at RfC above (Israel is not a notable belligerent nor supporter) is to be applied to all other Syrian Civil War topic pages, including for instance Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War and Quneitra offensive (June 2017). GreyShark (dibra) 08:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Please vote "Support" (consensus to be applied to all topic pages) or "Oppose" (decision should be made on each page individually) and provide with an explanation. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 08:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Tone Down Quneitra offensive (June 2017) - Israel should be noted there, but not at the level it is presently.Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear - you mean support exclusion of Israel from Foreign involvement article and propose to downgrade its notability in infobox in Quneitra offensive (June 2017); the question is however more broad - what to do when editors of other pages claim alternative consensus to include Israel as belligerent/supporter (like at talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War) which is inconsistent with current consensus at talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel and specifically denies inclusion of Israel in infobox as belligerent or supporter per above RfC; Israel can certainly be mentioned in the infobox (as in Quneitra Governorate clashes (2012–14) article) in regard to confirmed spillover incidents, as long as it is not shown as supporting a certain side.GreyShark (dibra) 09:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
      It is context dependent. Israel might merit mention in the infobox in an extremely local campaign (and smallish in scope/effect) along its border fence (and DMZ - including belligerents that are allegedly partially based in the DMZ beyond the border fence) in which there were cross-fire incidents during the campaign (alleged mortar first falling in Israel, Israel allegedly attacking targets of one of the belligerents in response to said alleged fire), and in which some of the belligerents are those very small local groups Israel has allegedly been in contact with. At the current level of involvement - Israel does not merit, in my opinion, a mention at the infobox level for the entire civil-war - as whatever the level of involvement is (we know what RS say, beyond is CRYSTALBALL of course) - we don't have sourcing for anything of wider strategic importance (setting aside the Hezbollah arm supplies - different conflict) for the campaign as a whole. We should be consistent - but there are exceptions (Quneitra would possibly be one of them. Incidents vs. Shuhada al-Yarmouk might be another) - but they are on an extremely local level (adjacent to Israel) - our position on Israel should be consistent between Syrian Civil War and non-adjacent campaigns - e.g. Aleppo, Deir Al-Zor, Idlib, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the long standing concensus on the parent page trumps local concensus on daughter pages some of us were not aware existed. This principle has been very clear on the ISIL naming debate for example. If RS discuss some Israeli action, by all means include, but don't turn them into a belligerent. Legacypac (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as per the strong consensus achieved after quite a bit of discussion here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, that is if i correctly understand this vote. I do not believe the exclusion of Israel from a list of belligerents in this and some other articles should trigger exclusion of the relevant section in Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War: Israel′s involvement (albeit not a belligerent) is beyond any doubt, if only as a neighbour of Syria: all Syria′s neighbour counries are involved some way or other; and if a neighbour is not involved, that would be most remarkable and notable in itself to merit a section in that particular article.Axxxion (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, to me, there seem to be different standard w.r.t. Israeli involvement , than with any other country. Is anyone really suggesting that, say Germany, or Norway, have larger involvement in the Syrian war than Israel? I thought not. And still, Germany, and Norway, are listed as parties to to the conflict, while Israel is not. This is a ridiculous double standard, Huldra (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing your logic. Norway has troops doing advising (which often involves shooting) and running a border crossing taken from ISIL.[1]. When did Israel put troops in Syria? Legacypac (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Besides the bombing raids (dont they count?), Israel is funding rebel forces, including funding their ammunition, Huldra (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Frankly you could cut out minor coalition members with token participation, however they are DECLARED conbatants. The air raids you are referring to are part of a long running Israel\Iran/Hezbollah conflict which is not (yet) part of the civil war. The degree of alleged published support for fence adjacent rebel groups is peanuts. Even less than peanuts.Icewhiz (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
There is no reliable source yet to support your claim of "funding their ammunition"; the only confirmed deliveries from Israel into Syria are humanitarian aid items, including medicals, food, fuel (for water pumps) and very limited finance (for humanitarian needs only). Remarkably Israel supplies both rebel-controlled areas at the Golan and at least one pro-regime village.GreyShark (dibra) 10:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Thisarticle from The Independent clearly says "Israel may be funding up to four other rebel groups which have Western backing. The groups use the cash to pay fighters and buy ammunition." How come that editors here cannot understand English anymore? Huldra (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
"May be funding" (maybe and maybe not) is well defining the situation as already mentioned above by Davidbena.GreyShark (dibra) 13:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. It has become "fashionable" to accuse Israel of things it has not done, or instigated. To the best of my knowledge, there is a coalition of western powers (including Jordan) working alongside the USA in the Syrian conflict. Israel is not one of these, to the best of my knowledge. Australia was even recently involved in air raids, until it pulled out its forces after a Russian fighter jet was downed and Russia had threatened to view all coalition military aircraft fighting without Syria's permission in Syria as valid targets. You see, Israel is NOT doing this, unless of course it wishes to preemptively strike at forces planning an attack on Israel. Strikes carried-out in self-defense cannot be construed for active involvement in the Civil War, since Israel has been defending itself since time immemorial - without any connection to the current Civil War.Davidbena (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The other pages are simply correct. Yet again, Israel is a belligerent in this war on the side of the Sunni Islamist rebels, in addition to supporting them financially[2] and medically[3]. Stating the opposite is simply special pleading. Israel is accused of "all sorts of things" because Israel does not shy away from doing "all sorts of things". At this point, I'm baffled pro-Israelis even care to contest this fact; the Israeli government isn't even trying to hide their allegiances in this war.[4] No one in the real world is fooled, but I predict this Wikipedia page will present a fantasy version of the Israeli role for years to come. FunkMonk (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
FunkMonk, if what you say is true, can you please cite your reliable Israeli government source where the Israeli government admits to being "involved" in the Syrian conflict? If you cannot do this, then what you say here is mere hearsay. When the former Israeli Defense Minister, Yaalon, said early last year that he would prefer Islamic State to Iran in Syria, it is a far cry from admitting to Israeli military intervention in the crisis. Perhaps you equate mere wishes with military action.Davidbena (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Your comment is not referring to the question - does the consensus of this page (above RfC) apply regarding the role of Israel apply to all Syrian Civil War topic pages. The above RfC (concerning Israeli involvement Yes/No) is already closed.GreyShark (dibra) 10:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
It should be added to all articles that Israel supports Syrian rebels, if that is not possible, the current situation should be kept. Nochyyy (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
If Israel gives humanitarian aid to Syrians, this is not the same as military support. If you have proof that Israel supports rebels militarily in the current conflict, please provide it. I have not seen any. As for Israel's own stance, by the following recently published article, it is plain that Israel has heretofore not involved itself in the current conflict, other than what might be perceived as self-defense. See: Israel may act. Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Davidbena Please read, eg. Thisarticle from The Independent clearly says "Israel may be funding up to four other rebel groups which have Western backing. The groups use the cash to pay fighters and buy ammunition." Now, when did paying fighters and buying ammunition become "humanitarian aid"? Seriously....Huldra (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
That is a RS reporting rumours as rumours. Legacypac (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The words "may be funding" say it all; it's all speculative. Besides, I see no reason why Israel should get involved in this conflict.Davidbena (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
No, that is a RS, citing "half a dozen rebels and three people familiar with Israel's thinking." Gosh, you really don't want to understand English anymore, do you? Lol. Huldra (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
In Quneitra, Israel always hit Syrian army positions, it never attacked Syrian rebels. Also, its airplanes several times bombed Damascus and other positions of Syrian government. The reason is clear, Assad government is an ally of Iran and Hezbollah. Nochyyy (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
It isn't as clear as you put it out. The heavy airstrikes are purportedly against arm shipments to Hezbollah - so this is a different issue. Regarding counterifre in the Golan area, while I personally suspect the same (for many but not all of the counterfire incidents), the stated Israeli position is that it sees the Syrian government (and in relation to Lebanon and Gaza - there is/was a similar policy of responses) for all fire coming out of its territory - thus a response is directed towards the government from whose de-jure territory Israel was fired upon.Icewhiz (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
This is factually not correct - Israelis have hit Ba'athist SAA and allied militant positions, FSA and pro-ISIL militants. But again - this is not the question of this RfC. The question is: should the consensus here (whatever it is) also apply to all Syrian Civil War topic pages.GreyShark (dibra) 11:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, Israeli involvement is in the gray zone, it is not so insignificant that we can ignore it and it is not that obvious (at least for some people) either. And I believe decisions should be made on each page individually. Nochyyy (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification.GreyShark (dibra) 13:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- consensus should not mean removal of information regarding their involvement from other pages. Nuke (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This should be decided for individual articles since Israel's involvement in this war varies widely from battle to battle. Applodion (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Israel has been involved to a smaller or larger degree throughout the war, each article should have discussions if they want to modify Israel involvement. Sgisright (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Brought here by bot. A preponderance of sources (New York Times: Israel has repeatedly hit targets in Syria during the country’s six-year civil war[5] | Chicago Tribune: Israel is widely believed to have carried out airstrikes in recent years on advanced weapons systems in Syria [6], etc.) demonstrate Israel is a military intervener in Syria during the time period in which the Syrian Civil War is occurring and against known belligerents in that war. To the question of Israel's own belligerency (which would seem to demand its inclusion in the infobox), my copy of Kelsen's Principles of International Law says that a belligerent would be an entity which has (a) a military organization separate and independent of any other, (b) is engaged in activities that have the characteristics of warfighting, (c) the entity controls part of the territory in which the war occurs, or has part of its territory controlled. If someone could convince me that "c" applies to Israel - or has applied to Israel at some point during the SCW, I would change my !vote to Oppose.
(I do not support the idea that the GOI must confirm its military involvement as a precondition of inclusion as seems to have been suggested elsewhere; this would put the Government of Israel in the position of exercising a de facto veto over the content of Wikipedia articles. Reality exists independent of a state's decision to issue, or not issue, a press release.) Chetsford (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

This RfC misreads the consensus from the prior RfC. I agreed that Israel is not a combatant. I, personally, did not rule out their involvement or support. I'm not going to !vote in an all-or-nothing proposal. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Show us a RS for that statement. As far as I've ever seen Israel has been carefully staying out of the SCW. Legacypac (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Israel is funding rebel forces, basically fighting by proxy. See above, under Sources for the Israeli involvement RfC. Huldra (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Huldra, are you making a trick here by first agreeing to move RfC from Foreign involvement to this page, but then making it with a slightly different wording here and now claiming the two RfCs are not linked? Instead of procedurally closing the older RfC at Foreign involvement article, some editor decided to close the intermediate result there in opposite to the long standing consensus on the topic and contrary to the successive RfC.GreyShark (dibra) 10:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Huh?? I agreed to having two RfC,. And consensus can change, as we all know, as circumstances change, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Got it, here goes WP:GF...GreyShark (dibra) 10:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The sources only report rumors and unverified claims. Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2017 (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.

October map

A OCTUBRE 2017 WAR MAP OF SYRIA MUST BE AVAILABLE WITH THE CURRENT TERRITORIES UNDER THE THE SYRIAN GOVERMENT. PLEASE!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiagoski (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

The map shouldn't show sparsely populated deserts as under control of any of the belligerents

Deserts make up most of the land in Eastern and South Eastern Syria. No armed group can control deserts, there's simply nothing there to control. Perhaps there's a fortress here and there, or a town by a river, and these could be marked as under control of whoever controls, but the area around them shouldn't. Tahrir al-Sham should be colored blue and sparsely populated deserts white.

--The deserts included roads inside, which the coloring is depending on the control status of roads. The roads are somehow too intense to show on this scale so they made like that. There's another detailed version.you can see somewhere else. (AyustimGniyrc (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC))

Rape

The following sentence is in the article as at 06:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC):

"Victims included men, women, and children, with about 80% of the known victims being women and girls"

This is not what the source says. The source says that of the reports, 80% 'included' female victims. Since not all reports have the same number of victims, and since "included" does not make clear the proportion of that unknown number which represented women, it is not possible to say 80% of the victims were female. Requested edit:

"Victims included men, women, and children, and 80% of the reports included female victims."

Or, given how vague the resulting sentence is, possibly just:

"Victims included men, women, and children." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.114.56 (talk) 06:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

the map is wrong

[7] 2804:14C:5BB5:8FFF:799C:2DD8:B7C3:23F9 (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The map has been updated on the 21st; if we're going to keep this update, the image caption should be updated to reflect the update, and the map key should be expanded to explain what the blue colour is showing (Tahrir al-Sham?) --dab (𒁳) 06:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Israel as a combatant

Recently some edits of mine triggered a discussion started on the Quneitra offensive article involving yours truly and editors @EkoGraf and @Applodion. The dispute is over the listing of Israel in infobox as a co-belligerent of the rebels in the fighting (revision here), although separated from the main body of rebel groups by a dividing line. At the same time, the article makes clear that Israel claims this is in response to shelling crossing their border, so the dispute is limited to the infobox listing. User Ekograf pointed to this article to show that opposing forces can be listed on the same side in this manner, and that the aforementioned dividing line between them denotes that they are not not necessarily allies. I would leave it at that if it wasn't for these two niggling problems: Firstly, the article already makes use of some sources that are pushing the narrative of Israel as a puppetmaster/supplier of the rebels, albeit only quoting them for other, non-controversial info in the articles. Secondly, the narrative of Israel as mastermind of the rebels and ISIS, etc, is already in the ether, so even though it might be special pleading, I feel like an exception should be made here because even if unintentional, putting Israel and the rebels on the same side could contribute to the all-around confusion and propaganda that exists around Israel's position in the Syrian civil war. The best solution I can see to avoid this would be to list Israel as a completely separate combatant in the battle. Eik Corell (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

First, Israel is not listed as a co-beligerent (ally) of the rebels. Based on an established template that has been used for years in numerous articles such as Battle of al-Hasakah (2015) Northern Aleppo offensive (February 2016) Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016) Palmyra offensive (2017), when there are two belligerents not fighting each-other and are instead clashing against the same (third) belligerent, but are still not allies or do not support each-other, then we place them in the same column but with a separation line dividing them. This has been done in cases where we had both the SAA and SDF clash against the rebels or ISIL at the same time, but not against each-other. Or, when we had both the SAA or the US-led Coalition clash against ISIL but not against each-other. Eik Corell proposed we place Israel in a third column in the infobox. This would be contrary to the established template and missleading since it would imply Israel clashed against the rebels as well during the offensive, which it did not. For the sake of compromise and to make Israel's position clearer, it has been proposed by me that we add (in addition to the separation line) beside Israel's name an asterix that links to a note that would say something like Air-strikes against Syrian Army only, unaligned with rebels. One other editor (Applodion) involved in the discussion has already agreed to the asterix compromise. As for Eik Corell's problem with the source that is being used in the article (Masdar), as per the agreed-to-policy after numerous discussions throughout Wikipedia, Masdar has been agreed to be verifiable enough to be used only for non-controversial issues (territorial changes, units involved, etc). Any statements made by Masdar for propaganda purposes are not translated/transferred into the article, keeping the neutrality of our articles intact. Any other personal feelings regarding Israel's involvement in this offensive should be put aside and we continue to edit based on verifiable sources. In any case, Israel should not have been removed from the infobox of the offensive since its involvement during the battle is already heavily sourced and highly notable and it should be reinstated in one form or another. EkoGraf (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
PS If Israel does end up in a third column of the offensive's infobox in the end, then it should be noted beside it's name, in brackets, that again the air-strikes were only against the Syrian Army, which has been factually verified. EkoGraf (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The fact it was removed shows just how far behind the wave wikipedia is. If one relied on Wikipedia to get a grasp of the complex Syrian conflict it would be a poor understanding. I cant see a way around the hole wikipedia has got itself into with its reference censorship. SaintAviator 22:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Consensus was for the main infobox on the Syrian civil war. And I myself am of the opinion that Israel's role during this war has not been notable enough to warrant including them in it, leading me to vote a couple of times against its inclusion in the main infobox. However, the discussion here is on the infobox of the June 2017 Quneitra offensive during which Israel was verifiably involved on almost half a dozen occasions in a notable manner. Occasions during which their actions (air-strikes) directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally, affected the development of the battle. EkoGraf (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Sigh, don't conflate articles with completely different scopes. There is no one size fits all, and trying to enforce it just looks tendentious. FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
For the past five years about once a month on average there is an attempt to change the standing consensus and try to include Israel as belligerent with you being one of the most loud voices behind those repeating procedures. Do you want to talk about " enforce it just looks tendentious" in more detail?GreyShark (dibra) 09:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Was I the one who repeatedly made those sections? No. Has my opinion changed since any of those sections were made? No. So what the heck are you complaining about, what can I do other than voice the same opinion when these sections are made, and I am pinged to comment about them? And there is no consensus to change because there is no clear consensus. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Israel has been a major player in the middle East for 70 odd years. There is no way Israel is not deeply involved in the Syrian war. It has to be for its security. For example, creating Red Lines, treating Isis wounded, targeting Hezbollah and Syrian Military with armed drones and jets, arming rebels, providing intelligence to rebels, providing orders to Rebels and Isis. Yes. This is the reality. Israel is also very concerned Iran is now stronger in Syria and that Assad is winning. israels Isis gambit failed. But here in Wikipedia you grapple with things like an Info box mention. Its laughable. The problem here is the ridiculous reference Boycotts. It would be far far better to allow sites like Al Masdar by having filters on opinions and make a meaningful article not this watered down right wing opinion piece. SaintAviator 20:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2017

I want to change Syrian Democratic Horses to Syrian Democratic Forces. Thanks. RuleCarolinnia (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems to have been dealt with already. GABgab 19:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Please update the Civil War Map, ISIS lost many territories in past 2months.

Please update the Civil War Map, ISIS lost many territories in past 2months. SpidErxD (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Drought section

This page makes it seem like the drought link is objective fact when there has been several recent studies suggesting the drought did not play a major role in the instigation of the war. Some papers even question whether there was an extremely severe drought as has been claimed with one paper only showing 2008 as a "drought" year. Please see: [[8]] and [[9]]. For just two examples both in written by academics in their respective fields and one with a peer-reviewed article. This section should be re-written to represent the drought as a potential view rather than a statement of fact with other skepticism written by other articles here. As it is written it is showing a major bias that may be riddled with inaccuracy. --Kuzwa (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2017

I request to add information pertaining to the 2010 Wikileaks cable leaks that demonstrate from as early as 2008, the CIA was encouraging "behavior reform" in Syria by funding Syrian activist groups, providing training to tribal Sheikhs and routing money into Syria via Movement for Justice and Development, a London-based Islamist group. In these cables it is proposed that funding for families of incarcerated activists should not be "so carefully earmarked" and that it is unclear whether funding is going towards illegal political groups within Syria.[1][2][3] Altm1987 (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: It is not clear where you would like this text to be added or why this is important information that is not already included. In addition, I should probably mention that Wikileaks cables by themselves are not generally considered reliable sources without [[WP:RS|reliable secondary sources] (such as the Washington Post article you've linked). Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "BEHAVIOR REFORM: NEXT STEPS FOR A HUMAN RIGHTS STRATEGY". Wikileaks. Wikileaks. Retrieved 1 December 2017.
  2. ^ Whitlock, Whitlock (17 April 2011). "U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show". Washington Post. Retrieved 1 December 2017.
  3. ^ Entous, Adam (26 January 2017). "Covert CIA Mission to Arm Syrian Rebels Goes Awry". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 1 December 2017.

Eastern Ghouta

We have a number of sub-articles on offensives and battles within the war, but as far as I can see we don't have one for the current Eastern Ghouta siege. Is there an article on this that I can find, e.g. on whatever offensive it relates to? BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Image in infobox

Are we going to add an image to this article in the infobox? I have made one using images on Wikipedia so there is no copyright issues. Anon551055 (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree Looks good to me. SpanishSnake (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

WikiPedia tags for other nations

Should there be WikiPedia tags for other nations added to this talk page, such as Russia or Turkey?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Provided evidence of the support of the Turkish military forces (for artillery fire large caliber) and the purchase oil off the terrorists.)

Provided evidence of the support of the Turkish military forces (for artillery fire large caliber) and the purchase oil off the terrorists.)

Jump up ^ https://russian.rt.com/article/145541 Jump up ^ http://lifenews.ru/news/182947 Jump up ^ http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/1579521/video/


Please sign in and/or use four tildas to mark your posts.104.169.39.45 (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

no year of entry for Iran and Hezbollah in the infobox

Hezbollah entered the war in 2013. Iran possibly in 2013 or 2014. These should be added to the infobox, where every belligerent except Iran and Hezbollah is shown when they entered the war.

69.166.118.36 (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Rename page to "Syrian War"

The ongoing war in Syria is no longer just a civil war, as it includes numerous foreign fighters (such as Russia and Turkey). Recent news articles about the war also refer to it as "Syria War" (BBC News)[1] or "Syrian War," (The New York Times)[2] likely due to this fact. Therefore, I propose renaming this page as such to the more accurate title of "Syrian War." 98.114.199.183 (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Oppose - it's a civil war, no matter who is supporting the various 'sides.'104.169.16.173 (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I just want to say that you should look through where it says This page was previously nominated to be moved. Before re-nominating, review the move discussions listed below. at the top of the page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Syria war: Israeli fighter jet crashes under Syria fire, military says". BBC News. BBC. Retrieved 10 February 2018.
  2. ^ "Why Is the Syrian War Still Raging?". The New York Times. The New York Times Company. Retrieved 10 February 2018.

Too many factions in the infobox

There is a |units1/2/3= parameter in Template:Infobox military conflict titled "Units involved" that was specifically designed for armed wings of the involved parties, such as the Syrian Armed Forces, the Khalid ibn al-Walid Army, etc. We also have a link to List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War in the belligerents' section header, given that there are too many factions and brigades involved. But, in its current shape, the belligerents' columns have more than enough of those, and we can't keep listing all the factions that come to mind. This would set a bad precedent for new editors. I recently made a series of edits designed to make the box as brief as I could, but was blanket reverted by Anon551055. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, 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). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. @Anon551055 and AntonSamuel: can we at least agree on not adding local factions with less than 10,000 members in size? We can discuss the exceptions to such rule individually. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi! I would argue that some groups are relevant to include because they represent a significant ethnic/religious group in the ranks of the belligerents, despite them having less than 10,000 members. For example Al-Sanadid forces and Syriac Military council, representing the (arguably) largest and most prominent Arab and Syriac Christian groups and the SDF Military Councils, since they largely control Manbij, Northern Deir Ez Zor and are have than 10,000+ members. However groups like Ba'ath Brigades, Arab Nationalist Guard, Eagles of the Whirlwind, Liwa al-Quds represent less significant and less unique groups and it could be prudent to remove them for simplification purposes. The list of CJTF–OIR participants could also be made into a collapsible list perhaps, and the strength section for the regime side could be made shorter. And yes an order of battle link would be prudent to include. AntonSamuel (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
We don't have to list the SDF military councils when the SDF is already mentioned. If we're adding the MFS for the sake of ethnic/religious diversity, then there's no reason for us to exclude Sootoro, for example. I would personally argue that Al-Sanadid didn't receive sufficient coverage in mainstream media outlets to be regarded as a significant faction. I have no clue as to how many fighters the PFLP-GC has on the ground in Syria, but I know for sure that they aren't all that popular among Palestinians, many of whom are fighting on the rebels' side. I also suggest we remove countries that haven't been involved militarily on the rebels' side, like France, Libya, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, while keeping the US due to its limited strikes on government targets. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Anon551055: regarding this edit, what exactly makes a faction "significant" to you and the other one "not very significant"? I'm honestly interested in knowing your reasons. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Pages such as the Iraq War and War in Afghanistan have much more factions in the infobox then this, and should be used as a guide to this infobox, removing all militas and allied groups and just putting allied groups is too much of a simplification, A few large factions should be added and then having Other allied groups for the smaller ones with a link to a relevant page.Anon551055 (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't care enough about the Iraq and Afghanistan articles, so I'm under no obligation to justify such inclusions just because other crap exists. I am, however, planning on taking this to the Libyan Civil War (2014–present) infobox (which is a complete mess), so feel free to add it on your watchlist if you're interested in discussing it there when the time comes. And you haven't told me yet what makes those particular factions more significant than others. Until you do, will you kindly revert your recent edits? Because this just feels too arbitrary to me. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Because they have around 7,000 members each, which is quite large, larger then some factions on the infobox, being they two largest allied militas other then NDF they should be in the infobox, then same should be done for the other sides, a cleanup should be done on the factions, but not to the extent of not even putting one allied milita.Anon551055 (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The 7,000 figure of the Ba'ath Brigades is from December 2013, after which many joined the Ba'ath Legion of the Syrian Army (per the article), and even so it's a relatively minuscule number. Just because an editor wants it there doesn't make it significant. And, once again, we already have a link to List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War in the belligerents header, so there's no reason to keep Liwa al-Quds either. Per the policy I mentioned above, an infobox should allow readers to identify key facts at a glance. This is the parent article of the very large SCW topic, so every claim in it should be given due weight. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

“Christian militias” sub-section

It is not correct to list “Christian militias” under “Syrian Government and allies” because the largest of them (Syriac Military Council=2,000+) is with SDF. Also WP:UNDUE given their size (a few thousands, with Sutoro=1,000+, Sootoro=500+, Gozarto=500+, etc.), their sub-section is double that of Syrian Army! Therefore, I am shortening and adding these with gov in the section on NDF and adding the ones with SDF in that section. This is especially relevant given the length of this article. Tradediatalk 02:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Also for information, worldtribune.com is not a reliable source and doesn't even have a Wikipedia article. You can read about it here: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/09/08/fit-to-print-2 Some of their articles have titles like: "Pastor: Melania Trump demanded White House be ‘completely exorcised’ before moving in" and "Iran: Western lizards join ‘spy’ pigeons, squirrels sent to track its atomic facilities" Tradediatalk 03:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

ORB International

ORB International is not a reliable source. We do not use primary sources, but wait for reliable secondary sources (media) to talk about them. In fact, ORB International has a bad reputation. John Rentoul, a columnist for The Independent newspaper, has asserted that "the ORB estimate has rarely been treated as credible by responsible media organisations, but it is still widely repeated by cranks and the ignorant." (The Independent 2010/06/13 copied from its Wikipedia article). Tradediatalk 00:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Have removed. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Belligerents : Where is Israel !?

Side which is clearly involved in this war, with many aerial and artillery assaults on Syria, with many weapons from Israel , shot down jets, drones over Syria isnt presented here ? Israel is clearly helping ISIL and antigovernment forces on Golan Heights. I would add Israel on belligerents (Support) which are siding "Syrian opposition" and "ISIL". --PetarM (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It is unclear whom Israel, if at all, is supporting and to what extent. Israel has actually shot at ISIL forces in a firefight, and has arrested and tried Israeli Arabs who have attempted (or succeeded) in joining ISIL. The cross-border raids seem to be mainly spillovers and part of a long-going Hezbollah/Iran vs. Israel war between wars - unrelated to the Syrian Civil War. An RfC on the matter was run in August 2017 - [10] - things have not changed much since then. They might change in the near future, but that's WP:BALL.Icewhiz (talk) 10:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It is more than clear Israel is against the Syrian government, bombing Damask often and nearby places. On Golan Heights they provided help to Al-Qaeda, also medical medical treatment to Al-Qaeda and ISIL. Thats is very clear. Its disturbing do we try to hide that ? Yestarday there was movie on Youtube with captured weapons, delivered straight from Israel to rebels. What do we need to add them on belligerents list... one more shot down jet, 2, 3... ?! --PetarM (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Now that the Syrian government has finally shot back, and it has become more of a two-way affair, Israel should certainly be listed in the infobox. Added to their continuous attacks on the Syrian governent and support for Islamist insurgents near Golan, there is really nothing to discuss. The mental gymnastics and special pleading required to keep Israel out of the infobox is getting ridiculous. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Firing without ever hitting anything is not the same as shooting down a plane. FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Same intent. Hitting anmodern fighter jet with a SA5 (which has been fired a number of times at planes, including once last year when on of these was alegedly intercepted by an Arrow ABM) has a low probability for each shot - but fire enough and so,ething will go down.Icewhiz (talk) 04:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
We follow the sources, not our personal POVs, or what we perceive to be the "intent" of the Syrian government or any other party in this conflict. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Certainly. Sources state Syria has fired SA5s before at Israeli jets, e.g. in October 2017[11] or March 2017[12] in which The Syrian military claimed it responded by shooting down one of the aircraft, but no evidence subsequently emerged to corroborate this claim.[13] - so nothing new in the Syrians firing at Israeli jets or claiming to have shot them down.Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz how would you describe situation on the map ? ISIL and rebels are by Israel territory and they are surounded by Govenment forces ? Do you accept fact they side them, even in hospitals and sending them back into Syria ? With arms from Israael. --PetarM (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade / Khalid ibn al-Walid Army control a very small strip of territory and were involved in firefights with Israel. Their ISIS connection is somewhat tenuous (they weren't initially affiliated, they did declare allegiance when IS was stronger), and there aren't all that many credible reports tying Israel to them (though as usual with Islamic State - everyone's favorite bogeyman in Syria - there's quite a bit of propaganda - but not credible reporting). The more credible reports tie Israel, in a minor fashion, to South-Western Syrian rebel groups (which at the moment, in confirmed and credible reports, amount to humanitarian assistance as well as minor other assistance) are to other groups - either unaffiliated local groups (of which, like in all of Syria, there are many) or Al-Nusra Front / Tahrir al-Sham. Israel, however, has also directly threatened these groups when they approached the Druze village of Hader, Quneitra Governorate too much (In Rare Move, Israel Says Ready to Protect Syrian Druze Town Under Attack by Islamic Militants).I do not think much has changed since the last RfC - there is minor reported cross-border meddling and a campaign against Iran/Hezbollah. Most analysts would not be surprised if Israel chose (or were thrust into) greater open involvement - but this hasn't happened yet.Icewhiz (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, i checked some other Wikipedias. Which don't do just translate. Israel is on Belligerents list on Spanish, Russian, Portugese, Nederland, Polish Wikipedia...among some other maybe (i havent checked all). So i see no reason not to add Israel. --PetarM (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Enwiki doesn't work that way, but it actually varies quite a bit. Notably, Israel is not included in the infobox in either the Hebrew, Arabic, Turkish, or Persian Wikipedia (all languages are involved/neighbors in the war). In Russian, it is in the infobox but with a note limiting this to the described airstrikes. In a number of other Wikis it is off (e.g. Italian, Greek from a random sampling). In any event, not much has changed since the last RfC which was rather recent.Icewhiz (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I advocated keeping Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War in the face of erstwhile fierce opposition. But I am inclined to think that listing them under "Main belligerents" heading here would be a bit far-fetched, and more importantly, inaccurate. Israel is formally at war with Syria, hence she is not so much involved in the civil conflict per se, rather striking Iranian and Iran-backed forces, which includes Syrian forces, in a direct way.Axxxion (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Their interactions with insurgent groups hint that they are indeed meddling in the civil war itself. FunkMonk (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Israel vs Iran/Hezbollah is a long running conflict predating the SCW. Israel vs Syria is also a long running unresolved conflict not related to the SCW. If Israel wanted to get in the SCW they would do a lot more than the minimal actions against Hezbollah and firing back when so one fires at them. Israel has the capacity to do serious damage in Syria but does not use it. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac: While I agree with the first two of your sentences in the posting above that deal with the matter under discussion, I believe the rest of your text above is a blatant abuse of this Resource for political propaganda (in fact, you sound like a spokesman of israel′s gov making threats to neighbouring countries, sth I do not remember ever having read on Wiki). We have a relatively exhaustive list of Israeli strikes in the relevant article: none of them was in retaliation for a strike at any Israeli targets inside Israel in her internationally recognized borders. A plain fact.Axxxion (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Well that's pretty insulting. I have no dog in the fight. I'm simply noting that Israel has significant military capacity, which is why they (and not Syria) show up on lists of the strongest militaries in the world [14].
That was not my point. But apropos armies rankings, these are all largely speculations based on theoretical analysis of a very limited range of parameters and technicalities. When a real war is fought between major powers (and this has not happened since 1945), "strength" of an army is but one of a slew of other salient circumstances, the primary ones being: a nation′s willingness to fight to the bitter end, depth of your territory and vulnerability of major hubs, resilience of civilian population and its readiness to sacrifice, etc. Apparently, neither Israel nor the U.S. would feature prominent on these. Most of the U.S. major targets, including the capital city (let alone Israel), can be easily destroyed by a first-strike submarine-based cruise-missile attack within a few minutes after the strike, due to their proximity to the sea (just one geographical fact to illustrate my point).Axxxion (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Wow, that is some twisted wordplay @Axxxion:.

none of them was in retaliation for a strike at any Israeli targets inside Israel in her internationally recognized borders. A plain fact.

No, they were in response to missiles landing in the Golan heights, which Israel considers part of itself (and has many Israeli citizens). Is it OK for Syria to shell areas of land because they're occupied (from a Syrian POV)? Because that's the logic behind Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. As for the military issue, granted, the last world war was in 1945. The last "classic" war between the two powers in question was the 1973 Yom Kippur war - which was itself a facet of the cold war. But modern wars aren't generally fought that way. Israel's capability in intelligence is a key asset in the region - hence the strikes on Hezbollah convoys. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 08:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
wow, wow, wow, @Bellezzasolo:. Thanks for elaborating on/illustrating my point. Wow!Axxxion (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Look carefully at the U.S. State Dpt map of Isr: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/International-Travel-Country-Information-Pages/IsraeltheWestBankandGaza.html?wcmmode=disabled Also, as far as I know, the State of Israel herself does not formally define her borders, which makes perfect sense, of course. Reminds me of Putin′s quip some months ago that Russia′s borders do not end anywhere: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/putin-russia-border-do-not-end-anywhere-comments-quote-eu-us-tensions-a7438686.html And Isr is now very cognizant of course of the fact that she now effectively shares her undefined border with Russia whose borders do not end... (I have been trying to read putin′s psyche for years and the only thing I can say with certainty is that he is learning from Israelis every day and tries hard to emulate them).Axxxion (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@Axxxion: my point being that talking about Israel's internationally recognized borders is a straw man argument. Consider, during an ongoing conflict, borders change (not internationally recognized, the war's been too short). Now, there's a ceasefire. A missile is fired into the occupied territory. Breach of the ceasefire or not? Because that's essentially the de facto situation r/e Israel/Syria, albeit over a much longer timescale. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
@Bellezzasolo:, you and me might have philosophical differences (from my observation of life for 50 odd years, it is obvious to me that once one has the ability to damage/remove/plunder one′s opponent/neighbour with relative impunity, one will always do so and create tangible arguments to demonstrate that it had been done justly, fairly, mercifully, and often obeying God′s will too), we agree on the subject matter of this thread: Israel obviously does not yet qualify to be listed in the graph in question.Axxxion (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality of articles

The article is presently not worded in a neutral manner. It starts with the word "civil war" and continues with how it is explained the conflict started, which is hugely one-sided. I think the article needs to be reworded to put all sides into it rather than singularize on only one certain world view that is being propagated as-is. 2A02:8388:1640:9200:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2018

With respect to the start of the civil war, the current narrative in the article is not supported by more recent information. According to an article in the American Herold Tribune, CIA-backed foreign mercenaries/terrorists were already in place ready to go prior to the outbreak of violence in Deraa in March 2011. Not only was the U.S. providing weapons and logistics support to foreign mercenaries/terrorists, including Al Qaeda, U.S. politicians, including U.S. Senator John McCain and U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford actively called for an armed uprising to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al Assad.

[1] Tezoc49 (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ “The day before Deraa: How the war broke out in Syria,” Steven Sahiounie , American Herold Tribune, August 10, 2016.
"Reliable sources" is a really curious term if most articles are linked in from e. g. Reuters, New York Times and so forth. This shows a limitation of Wikipedia as-is. 2A02:8388:1640:9200:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Developments and challenges in Syria (March 2018)

Hello editors,

This article lack a granular political analysis, for example it does not acknowledge or contextualize the simple fact that due to global diplomatic hesitance, confusion, or misinformation, what we deal with here is not "one, but a whole series of wars and proxy wars, involving the Syrian government, the Syrian people, a divided opposition, Russia, Iran, Turkey, the Kurds, Saudi Arabia, Israel, IS, Hezbollah and Salafist jihadist groups such as Al Nusra and its successors, not to speak of the rights and legitimate interests of minorities like Syrian Turkmen, Circassians, Ismailis, Druze, Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, Yazidis, Christians and Jews. As one young refugee put it, “It is like twenty football teams playing against one another on a single pitch.”

For those interested to learn the 'real world' dynamics of Syria, have a look at this recent article by two aid-workers [here]! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:21D5:7E00:95FF:6E4A:D65A:4B91 (talk) 15:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead is now too short

I remember the lead being too long and it was probably heavily trimmed as a result, but the current one is simply too short. Look at well established war articles of similar lengths such as World War II, World War I, Vietnam War, Korean War etc. While this article's lead would have to be updated occasionally due to ever changing factors, readers are unlikely to read the whole article and would probably benefit from more information in the lead. For example, the evolution of the war's major alliances (and therefore also major changes) could be outlined. Furthermore, the actual onset of the war and its first battles as well as the several phases (initial rebel gains, then ISIS inception + gains and international involvement, then SAA gains, then Turkish intervention ...) can be included. Major battles and agreements could get part of a paragraph now or in the future, but would be more difficult to determine because we don't know their full impact yet. Any kind of change like this would obviously need direct consensus first. Prinsgezinde (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Iranian casualties are not correct

Regarding Iranian casualties, the 2000 killed were as this article states mostly Afghans and not Iranian nationals: https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-1-100-fighters-killed-syria/28355761.html

Also the current linked source (https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20180307-tehran-2100-iranian-soldiers-killed-in-syria-and-iraq/) shows a picture of remains of Iranian soldiers and incorrectly describes it as "The bodies of more than 1,000 Iranian troops who were killed in Syria since intervention began". These are infact remains from Iranian soldiers killed during the Iran-Iraq war: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/iraniraq-soldiers-remains-retur — Preceding unsigned comment added by VendixDM (talk • contribs) 03:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Afrin and Aleppo district

Why is it that the Kurdish territory of these regions is not counted as Syrian since they requested the entrance of army troops? 2804:14C:5BB5:8FFF:E3A1:40C2:9BB0:50DD (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

number of deaths

is there a change in the deaths so far? O_o75.171.91.117 (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Of course there is, so if you find reliable sources (as in news websites, etc.) that give an updated number, feel free to edit it in, and maybe talk about it here so that no one mistakes it for vandalism. Thanks a lot for your interest. Double Plus Ungood (talk) 05:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

DFNS faction casualties update

YPG and YPJ casualties seems to have soared after recent Olive Branch operation, if latest SOHR numbers are to be considered. Maybe someone should modify that part of table in the lead?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertpda (talk • contribs) 14:58, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Salafi Jihadist groups

Not that this is necessarily "wrong," but I don't understand why Salafi jihadist groups like Tahrir al-Sham are grouped in with the Syrian Opposition. I know that some Salafis like Ahrar al-Sham work with the Free Syrian Army, but I find it odd that Tahrir al-Sham isn't considered a separate belligerent; just take a look at their state an non-state opponents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahrir_al-Sham. I always thought this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_opposition#/media/File:The_Syrian_opposition_within_Syria.png was the extent of the "Syrian Opposition." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahanshah26 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

Can someone put China in the infobox in the main belligerents section? Here is the source: https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20171128-china-to-deploy-troops-to-fight-alongside-assad-in-syria/ Vhstef (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Not unless you can find more and better sources.- MrX 🖋 12:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Needs bias tag

The idea expressed in the second sentence of the lede ("The unrest in Syria, part of a wider wave of 2011 Arab Spring protests, grew out of discontent with the Assad government...") is in no way universally believed, and is certainly not proven in the rest of the article. I presume Wikipedians will never have the wherewithal to write the truth, so the tag would be a tiny concession to the majority of the world who don't swallow the US propaganda line whole. 142.113.229.49 (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, no mention the US since 2005 has been funding terrorists in Syria. This whole thing is bullshit AHC300 (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Where in the hell do you get USA stopped support FSA?

According to this we are still funding them https://ahvalnews.com/fsa/us-cut-support-fsa-not-fighting-isis-pentagon AHC300 (talk) 01:21, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Currently, the US only officially supports 50 or so men in the desert who are considered to be FSA. They constitute less than 1% of all forces considered to be FSA in Syria. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact they still support them, along with the al-Qaeda, along with the Israel Zionists and UK and France. You seem to clearly be getting paid by the CIA to shill here. AHC300 (talk) 19:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Nor is there any proof the CIA actually ended their funding. Nor does that take into account the Petagon funding.AHC300 (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Useful photo?

Syrian expatriates marching for Assad in Old Europe. Flags and pictures galore. --Edelseider (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Demonstrating for Assad, Strasbourg, France; 27 May 2012
Probably not in this article, but maybe in a more specific article. FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Add Israel to the list of the main belligerents

For months, Israel has been attacking Syrian cities with missile strikes, and yet it's not listed as a belligerent in the war? What if North Korea bombarded Seoul, or Russia attacked Kiev? I doubt it would make those countries neutral, and yet in this case, Wikipedia perceives Israrl as a third party?--Adûnâi (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Adûnâi: The perceptions of us editors don't matter; it's the perception of reliable sources. Can you provide one (or more) that in some way describes Israel as a belligerent? —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@T Compassionate727 good joke. Lets say Israeli weapons all over Syria, with photos, movies, shot down jet, drones, helping rebels and ISIL at Golan heights, with ambulance and weapons. Rocket attacks - soem dozens of them. Etc. --PetarM (talk) 11:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC) p.S. And latest Isreali attack on Syria 2 days ago with, probably F-35 and new kind of rocket.

@PetarM: Sure. But is Israel truly a belligerent in this conflict, interfering with objective of advancing some other participant's progress in the war? If reliable sources document this to be the case, adding this information to the infobox is simply a matter of procuring said reliable sources. If Israel's intervention is simply the introduction of another front in a war that is really the amalgamation of several separate wars, then adding them to the infobox becomes quite difficult. Really, this is the whole problem with infobox conflict in proxy wars: concisely displaying information comes at the expense of accuracy.
But perhaps somebody more knowledgeable about this than me thinks it would be appropriate to add it somewhere. I likely won't object, provided the changes made aren't completely foolish. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 12:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
At present, Israel as a "main belligerent" requires WP:OR and WP:BALL. Beyond the unconfirmed nature of the alleged Israeli strikes, it is also unclear whether these alleged strikes serve a purpose in the context of the civil war as opposed to the wider conflict.Icewhiz (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@T Check Vietnam War, look, i didnt even know my country - Yugoslavia is listed on the list. But with some reference etc i suppose all OK. While here, country which is in "proxy war" or even stronger, isnt even listed. 9.000 km distance Yugoslavia-Vietnam, 50 years ago. I even have to check what was Yugoslavia doing. But this here is pharse. As i stated before, on other Wikis Israel in on the list. Who is preventing this here isnt Wiki any more, politics. Some person, reading this in year 2200, migt think Israel didnt thow some tons of bombs, wasnt connected at all. Tragic. --PetarM (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Did Israel bomb "cities", though? Not just some airbases and military installations? You need some pretty solid sources to sustain your claim that the Israelis bombed civilian dwelling places, too. --Edelseider (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • At this point, Israel sits snugly on the side of Salafist insurgents near Golan, bombing their enemies for them, taking care of their wounded, coordinating with them, and providing them with material. None of this is even controversial anymore. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

The very fact that this discussion exists is humurous "But did they really bomb cities?" come on, does Israel have to launch an all out nuclear assault before being listed? They are bombing Syria, they have been intermittently for years, no one disputes that. Countries get put in there just for supporting a side, while the Israelis support the Sunni rebels (just look at a damn map of the conflict, for crying out loud) launches missile strikes, fighter jets drop bombs oh, and, there's the small fact that they are STILL OCCUPYING PART OF SYRIA. It's all an absolute joke. If Wikipedia needs a damn newspaper to tell us that the Israelis are as involved as anyone, what's the point of Wikipedia? It's just some kind of propaganda outlet on these issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.189.154 (talk) 00:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

We also have latest news, yestrerday bombing of Syrian army - Syrian Pantsir was destroyed by Isreal, video is available from Israeli side. Any comment here, talk, Compassionate727 Would you now add Israel ? --PetarM (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - there has been no change in situation - alleged and seldom approved strikes by Israeli Air Force against Syrian targets or on Syrian Arab Republic territory against Iranian targets are still marginal (around 100 alleged and approved Israeli strikes vs. hundreds by each of Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve minor members, thousands of airstrikes by Turkey, tens of thousands of airstrikes by US and also tens of thousands of airstrikes by Russian Federation); the strikes are mainly against non-Syrian forces (Iran and Hezbollah); and there are no Israeli forces within Syrian territories yet to support the claim of change from Uti possidetis status. We mention this on foreign involvement page, but this is not yet a belligerency on the scale close to Turkish invasion or Russian intervention.GreyShark (dibra) 14:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Title

Suggest the title is dangerously misleading.

Indeed. It's not a civil war. 100+ countries are backing ISIS, including the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.239.242.222 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Request to correct the Iranian and Iranian led casualty numbers

Casualties as per 2018: -549 Iranians -878 Afghans -116 Iraqis -112 Pakistanis

https://twitter.com/Alfoneh/status/984077389318717441

This article uses Ali Alfoneh as a source but it does not show the correct casualty numbers, it should be corrected.

RedSparrow1 (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is also a good source:

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/hundreds-iranians-have-been-killed-syria-why-does-tehran-fight-376313881

Marius816 (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Marius816 First, the middleeasteye report is out-dated by a year compared to newer sources. Wikipedia requires us to use newer sources. Second, the 2,100 figure from March 2017, and the 2,100 figure from March 2018, are not the same. The March 2017 figure was explicitly stated to include both Iranians and non-Iranians. The March 2018 figure was explicitly stated to include only Iranians. Nowhere is it stated in the new March 2018 report that the figure includes non-Iranians as well. Third, Wikipedia's policy actually gives emphasis on the usage of secondary sources, not primary sources, see WP:PSTS. Primary sources are actually avoided if there are secondary ones. Fourth, if you are referring to the Middle East Monitor's pro-Hamas position when saying they are not neutral that does not automatically mean they are incorrect in their report, especially since it is not they who are reporting the figure but are quoting an officially announced Iranian figure. Fifth, no evidence Ali Alfoneh has tracked every single casualty and in fact, when asked about the new 2,100 figure that was officially stated in March 2018, he stated his figures are for those he was able to document and he always emphasis his data collection is ongoing. Finally, the middleeasteye cited in January 2018 [15], an official in the Afghan forces fighting under the Iranian banner that 2,000 Afghans had been killed, further re-affirming that Alfoneh's figures are not always correct and that the new figure of 2,100 could not in any way include non-Iranians as well, even though (again) it was stated the figure was referring to Iranians only. EkoGraf (talk) 07:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I have made an attempt at compromise and now both figures are included. EkoGraf (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempt at compromise, but I still think Middle East Monitor is a bad source (for instance the picture used in their article is actually an exchange of the remains of soldiers from the Iran-Iraq war at the Salamche border crossing). The 2100 figure originally refered to "defenders of the shrine", thus including non Iranians. This figure has been reused by other media platforms wrongfully refering to them as Iranian citizens. Furthermore the article clearly states "Mohammad Ali Shahidi Mahallati, director of the Martyrs Foundation, did not give a break down of the casualties by nationality. There are many non-Iranians fighting under Iranian command in Syria, but by most credible estimates, at least half of the 2,100 killed are Iranians. The vast majority of the Iranian casualties are likely affiliated to the Quds force, the expeditionary wing of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)."

Marius816 (talk) 12:44, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

On a further note, I will add Ali Alfoneh's study from the Washington Institute, this is a better source rhan his twitter page: http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/iranian-casualties-in-syria-and-the-strategic-logic-of-intervention

Marius816 (talk) 12:56, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The quote regarding Mohammad Ali Shahidi Mahallati about different nationalities was from the first report from a year ago. Its not mentioned in the new report. As for the Washington Institute report, its outdated by more than two years, it would be best to find a newer source. EkoGraf (talk) 16:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
I provided a newer news report wrote by Alfoneh himself instead of the WI report. PS In this report [16] Alfoneh stated that his figure is, quote, an absolute minimum, reaffirming his figures are incomplete. In any case, glad we settled the issue. EkoGraf (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I still think the number of 2,100 figure is incorrect, this obviously includes non-Iranian nationals. I found the original Persian article, they are ref. to as "defenders of the shrine" (Modafeaaneh Haram). This has been mistranslated by several media sources, including the Middle East Monitor.

Here is the original article in Persian: http://www.bbc.com/persian/iran-39192615 Marius816 (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It is necessary to update the infobox

The map was not updated since May 22, territorial changes since May 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.151.19.210 (talk) 06:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree also YPG casualties are only from 2016. ypg casualties should also be changed Needbrains (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2018

The United States are behind the war in Syria. They arm the rebels. The United States are ruining the world. Qwerty1234qwerty1 (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.--SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 00:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Isn't it better to just delete such 'edit request' which simply is not an edit request -- and not a request for any specific discussion either -- from this page, as being off-topic and disturbing/misusing this page? --Corriebertus (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Map

The more detailed map shows that the ISIS enclave in the east surrounded by SAA forces has disappeared. So why is it still reflected in the less-detailed map? Display name 99 (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

What is that place supposed to be? What are they (ISIS) holding on to?--75.66.124.118 (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Similar question from me: can someone update the map on top of the article? I cannot find any more ISIL/ISIS, nor Tarir al-Sham, on the map; if that is correct please remove them from the legenda too. --Corriebertus (talk) 17:45, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I removed ISIL from that map's legenda. --Corriebertus (talk) 05:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

drought neutrality tag

Given that there is no discussion of it here, I can only assume that the drought neutrality tag was added by someone who doesn't believe in human-made climate change. Given that no one seems to want to discuss it, should it not be removed? Serendipodous 07:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Syrian Civil War/Archive 46#Drought section --Inops (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The sources cited check out and are all reliable. For good measure I'm going to add a reference to the NAS study [1] that is referenced in the Times article, but I think this section meets the neutral POV standard. Since there has been no further discussion after the first suggestion to remove the NPOV tag in June, I'm taking it off. Cntepe (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3241
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_46&oldid=1149797076"