Talk:Casualties of the Syrian civil war/Archive 1

Archive 1

Unreferenced figures of total casualties removed

I've just removed several figures from the article which claimed, without a specific reference, to be the total of various types of casualties. Per WP:OR we can't add up various figures which were posted in Wikipedia articles - Wikipedia isn't a reliable source for itself. There appear to be a number of well credentialed external organisations monitoring casualties in Syria, and if they're unable to provide figures for total casualties based on their sources and methodologies, we sure shouldn't pretend that figures posted in Wikipedia articles are an acceptable alternative. Please see the lengthy discussion at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Taliban and insurgents casualty figure removed from the infobox and the following threads in which there was consensus support for not treating casualty figures added up from news reports as being acceptable in situations where no-one has published a reliable estimate of total casualties. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the example of that discussion, we will stick to what is properly sourced in the future. EkoGraf (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

OK great, and thanks for adding those references. Nick-D (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. EkoGraf (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Civilian Deaths

I do not see any reference anywhere to non-combatant civilian deaths. Is this available to link to or include here? Jimerb (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

They are included in the overall tolls and you can check the links to the sites provided in the article for an approximate number of civilians if that is what interests you. It was decided that it would be too complicated to try and separate the number of civilians killed due to the fact that the opposition groups are counting rebel fighters that weren't former soldiers as civilians. It would be misleading at best and OR at worst if we tried something like that. So we provide an overall number per the various opposition activist groups and some of the combatant killed figures if we have the sources. EkoGraf (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this info EkoGraf and for your contributions on this page. Well done! It's a little tricky to get an idea of how much of a massacre it is without a clarity on civilian deaths. I'm probably missing something but wouldn't the civilian deaths be the Total deaths minus the combatant deaths? Thanks. Jimerb (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It would, but as you see in the up above discussions, that would be OR if the source itself doesn't say the number and the figures themselves are coming from different sources and not one unified source. As you can see up above, user Nick-D would be the first to point this out. And I agree with him, since, like I said, the figures are all not coming from a same source so there is a possibility of overlapping. However, if you want to be included more on this article, your opinion on the SOHR totals discussion would be appreciated. As you can see up above, user Nick-D has expressed reservation at my attempt to combine SOHR-only day-to-day numbers of rebels killed into a unified death toll and wants to remove the full toll on the basis that it is OR if the full toll itself was not cited. I have stated that I agree with him if the figures were coming from different organisations, but in this case it is coming from one organisation with its own constant methodology. Sidenote, since you were interested, in my personal view, based on which I can't edit the article, if the numbers of combatants killed are true, out of the estimated 24,000 dead in Syria, about 12,000 are civilians, while 6,000 are government troops and 6,000 are rebels. So that would make the civilian fatalities around 50 percent of the total. EkoGraf (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks EkoGraf, I've commented up above and now understand the rationale. Jimerb (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

VDC totals

What source do you use for the death totals (24,852 deaths)? According to the homepage of the VDC there are 22,328 deaths or is there something that I'm missing from the homepage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostwriter94 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The homepage you are looking at lists only civilians and rebels killed. The VDC has a separate page from the main one [1], where they list government soldiers killed. And at the moment they list 1,814 dead. However, they haven't been updating that number since mid-June so you can say its out-of-date. EkoGraf (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

But that numbers still don't add up to the current total of 25,196 deaths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostwriter94 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Pardon, my bad, I typed wrong, the VDC source says 2,814 soldiers. Typed 1 instead of 2. XD So if it says, at the moment, 22,440 civilians and rebels, in addition to the 2,814, that is 25,254. Which I will update now. The Wikipedia page here can't be exact every minute per the VDC, because the VDC updates literally every minute, and I only edit the page once in the afternoon and once in the evening. EkoGraf (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, now I see! Thanks for the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.141.181.63 (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Syrian civil war"-page having differant numbers?

Why does this page and Syrian civil war have different "highest estimate"-numbers? Today, this page says:

"Estimates of deaths in the Syrian civil war vary between 28,000 and 36,690."

While the civil war-article says:

"According to various sources, between 28,000[60] and 44,510[61][29] people have been killed" 213.185.28.232 (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Because an editor at the main civil war article requested months ago to combine for the higher estimate Syrian shuhada numbers (which don't include security forces killed) and the SOHR number of security forces killed. While in this casualties article another editor requested the number not be combined. EkoGraf (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation! It seems to me that one of those methods should be picked and used in both articles, or at least that this "calculation" should be described in the article text 213.185.28.232 (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is there a separate article on this topic? Surely one article on the civil war would suffice - and would be consistent with other wars.203.184.41.226 (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There isn't a separate article on the topic. One article is about the civil war itself, and within it there is a short section where it is summarized in fine short points what the numbers of dead in the conflict are. While this article here deals more broadly with the casualties. It's per Wikipedia rules that, for the sake of main articles not becoming too large and bloated, we branch of certain parts of the main articles and move the info into articles for themselves. EkoGraf (talk) 01:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

i change the "palestine" section in foreign civilians killed

"palestinian refugees" that live in syria are syrians that burn in syria and has the same ethnicity and language as the rest of the population their and most of them was never been in israel or in the british mandate time,they cant be "foreign" if they burn ther and the only thing that make the arabs treath them as "palestinians" is from politicaly reasons and for the hope that they one day "return" to the area of israel and change the demography their in favor to the arab population. and one more thing,many of the arabs that live their befor and after the state of israel has origin from syria(the rest has origin from other arab states)and ther is entire arab "palestinian" villages in israel that has origin from arab syrians and nomads bedouins that came from ther like Tuba-Zangariyye village. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.169.176 (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

And I told you what the problem is. The sources provided regard the Palestinians as foreign nationals in Syria and count them as such. If you are personally regarding them as Syrian Palestinians that's your right but on Wikipedia that's considered OR, because Wikipedia is based on verifiability and we go with the sources. We do not make edits based on our own opinions but on the sources. And if per the sources the Arabs regard them as Palestinians and not their own nationals than they are just Palestinians. That's how Wikipedia works. EkoGraf (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

if wikipedia was working blindly on sources even if its not make any sense wikipedia was full of non sense,and calling people that was burn and live ther all ther life a "Foreign" from place that they wasnt even been ther is obviously not make any sense and the political reasons that stand behind that are also obvious.so you take the reliance on sources to far her,wikipedia dosn't relies blindly on sources when its defies any logic or common sence.--79.180.133.107 (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It perhaps defies logic and common sense in your point of view, but Wikipedia only takes into account reliable sources. And all sources regard Palestinians as foreign nationals. So please stop removing sourced information or it will be regarded as vandalism. Friendly warning. Please stick to Wikipedia rules if you want to continue editing on it and be constructive. They are still regarded as Palestinian refugees in Syria and not Syrian nationals by most sources. A Palestinian is a Palestinian and a Syrian is a Syrian, big difference. EkoGraf (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

your point of view(or anybody else)make the defenition of someone that burn in one place a "foreign" from a place that he never been ther? of course not because its not make any sense and has nothing to do with point of view and all the people that do it are doing it because many other people do it from political reasons.--79.180.133.107 (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Per sources, the Palestinians are not Syrians. Most of them are refugees with no Syrian citizenship. Like it or not, they are in a legal perspective foreign. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

most of the "refugees" ther burn in syria and called like that only for political reasons,they can't be refugees if they dont burn in 1948 when many arabs left the area of today israel to arab states,and the fact that they dosnt have syrian citizenship can't make them "foreign" from place that they never been ther.--79.180.133.107 (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Both IPs should know that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that works by sources. I do understand POV of both IPs, but they can not expect that other users repalce sources with their opinions. Only then Wikipedia would become unlogical. If you find one, strong, reliable source for you claims, then other users will consider them, otherwise you have nothing so far. What are you doing here is called original research. --Wüstenfuchs 08:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

work on sources for information,the information that we get from that source and any other similar source is that ther is some people without citizenship that most of them has parents or grandparents that came to ther from the former mandatory palestine and from the fact that most of them are below the age of 65 they probably burn in syria and never been in that place themselve.so how you can call to this people "foreign" from that place based on that information??.like i said if its not make any sense its should be removed.--79.180.133.107 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

everybody who see this discussion can see that is not about relying on sources but about adopting source obviously biased perspective on the subject just because many people do it even if it defies any kind of logic and common sense.the source talk about arabs that most if not all of them was burn in syria and live them all of ther life and was never been in the place that they are "foreign" from and that obvious mistake shouldn't be in wikipedia. relience on sources dosnt mean quote them blindly.--79.180.133.107 (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually nothing blind in quoting those sources. The sources say they are foreign nationals and they say they are Palestinians, they don't even call them Syrian Palestinians let alone just Syrians. And like all three of us told you, your position goes against Wikipedia's policy on Verifibility (reliable sources), Original Research (personal opinion edits) and even Commonname (call something as the majority of sources call it). So sorry, but this is how Wikipedia works. EkoGraf (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

the source talk about foreign people that came from foreign place not on nationality and as you can see yourself the chart working on countries not nationality or self-determination,and anyway syria has many people with a second nationality like kurds and assyrian people that both of them have diffrent language and culture from the rest of the arabic population but still they arent "foreign" in the chart.like i said befor they can't be a "foreign" from mandatory palestine because most if not all of them was burn in syria and was never been ther or in israel,and what you doing is not relying on sources but blindly quote the obvious wrong perspective of some people about the information they present.you should accept the fact that i am right her and stop to resist to simple correction.--79.180.133.107 (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Wikipedia is clear on this, saying I am right, they are wrong simply does not work on Wikipedia. Also you have 3 editors in agreement on this issue and only you are against. There is also a Wikipedia rule on a majority consensus based on sources. And at this point there is consensus. Like Wusten told you, if you find sources that back up your claims than we may reopen the debate, but until than....sorry. P.S. Assyrians are an ethnic group, not a national grouping, unlike the Palestinians. EkoGraf (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

what exactly i should back up with source her? that most if not all of the people who called "palestinians" in the source are probably less than 65 years old and just cant be refugees from 1948 and therefore burn in syria(or other arabic country)and obviously can't be "foreign" from mandatory palestine? of course not its so obvious that you probably realize it yourself but still arguing and resist to my correction even when you also can see at yourself that the chart work on countries that the foreign people came from and dosnt have realation to any kind of self determination like the "palestinians"(and no it dosnt matter if its a "ethnic grouping" or "nationality")in syria.the other people her back off because they has nothing to say to back up the claim they came to support and probably realize that i am right and anyway everybody else who came her and see this discussion can see that you resist for no reason,if you dosnt have somthing to prove your point you should atleast think about what i said and stop resisting to simple correction with no reason.--79.180.133.107 (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The others are not engaging into this discussion so much because they have spelled out Wikipedia's rules to you as have I did and they have nothing else to say. I am still discussing this with you because I am trying to point you to Wikipedia's guidelines so your edits in the future could be constructive and contributing, in essence I am trying to help you. I am not resisting for no reason, I am simply asking you to back up your claims with sources, which is a founding rule of Wikipedia. Any edit without a source is automatically reverted here on Wikipedia, that is simply how it works. Our personal opinions do not count. Wikipedia does not care what you or I think, it only cares what the sources say. EkoGraf (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

i ask you somthing,what exactly i should back up with sources her? the fact that most if not all of the people we talking about can't be arab refugees from mandatory palestine(1948)? the fact that the chart working on countries that the foreign civilian came from and therefore can't include those arabs that most if not all of them was never in the place that they are presented as "foreign" from? that what you telling me?,you talk about wikipedia rules on relying on sources but ther is no sources that prove your claims and obviously dosnt relate to the concept of the chart about foreign civilian from another countries.and they has nothing to say from the same reason that you avoid the discussion and ignores the facts and the article itself.if you dosnt have somthing to say against what i am saying you shouldn't resist to my edith,simple as that.--79.180.133.107 (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

You need a source for what you are saying, edits can not be made without sources. I don't know how many times I need to repeat it. Also your comment that there are no sources to prove my claims, well, simply that is not true. The main source which lists the number of Palestinians killed in the conflict [2] which we are using. The specific page is called "The number of martyrs by Nationality". The Palestinians are listed separately from the Syrians in the table. EkoGraf (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

this source dosnt prove anything you said its dosnt present anything exept of calling them "palestinians" and that is not a foreign civilian from foreign country especialy when most of them can't be refugees from mandatory palestine and was never even been ther.and stop ignoring my question why i should give sources to this simple facts??how the fact that the source dosnt give any information that relate to the chart need a "source"? are you reading what i am write her?.--79.180.133.107 (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I am reading what you are saying and I think I have replied to your question at least 3-4 times. You need a source because Wikipedia requests of you to have a source. Because Wikipedia does not allow major edits that are not backed-up by sources. Wusten told you that if you are making an edit based only on your own personal opinion than that is a violation of Wikipedia's rule on Original research. I have told you Wikipedia's rules on this issue several times. If you ignore Wikipedia's rules than a Wikipedia administrator can block you for violating them. EkoGraf (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

wikipedia rules said that i need to bring source to the fact that your source dosnt relate to the chart? or to the fact that most of the people the source talking about probably under the age of 65 and therefore was never been in mandatory palestine? seriously? of course not you are just repeating on excueses because you dont have what to say in this discussion.--79.180.133.107 (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have already provided a source which has been accepted by the other editors. My source does make reference to the chart, it's just that you have decided to ignore the source and have your own point of view of it. And I am not making excuses but I should tell you that your tone is becoming rather hostile and should warn you that Wikipedia also has a rule on civility in talk between editors. If one of your major issues is about mandatory palestine than that problem can be easily corrected. I will change the place of origin for the palestinians in the article from mandatory palestine to palestinian territories. I was not even the one who put mandatory palestine there in the first place. I will make the edit for sake of friendly compromise. Otherwise if you continue to be uncompromising on this issue and insist on ignoring Wikipedia's rules than you will be reverted each time when you make an unsourced edit anywhere and an administrator may as well intervene in the future. EkoGraf (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Nationalities

After a discussion with involved editors at WP:VPM regarding the listing of deaths by nationality, the issue was determined to be that the table should not include the deaths of Palestinians, because, and I quote, "they are just arabs living in Syria". Of course, if they were Syrian then this whole discussion would be moot, but the editor is apparently unable to specify just what nationality these victims should be listed as. There are more than enough sources that classify them as Palestinian, the issue of Palestinian refugees in Syria (and their lack of Syrian citizenship) is perfectly well documented, and the entity known as the Palestinian Territories is a fact of recognized international law. Thus, they are Palestinian victims. I would remind the editor that Kurd is an ethnicity, not a nationality, at least not legally, and thus it would be incorrect to list victims here as Kurds. The same goes for all other ethnicities. This is not the place to argue about the legal status of the Palestinian state. I would also remind everyone that ARBCOM usually reserves the right to consider articles that even mention Israel or Palestine as falling under the umbrella of this arbitration case, which supersedes WP:3RR and is known for getting people topic-banned. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, same thing I have been repeating for the last five days. Half a dozen editors have at this point explained Wikipedia rules very well to user 79.180... Thus I have nothing more to say. The issue is closed. EkoGraf (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Map

The map shown in the article is currently pretty useless, maybe it has always been. Standing in concurrence to other numbers on the page it is obviously outdated, given the fact that casualty numbers have risen sharply in the second half of 2012. To me the map's information was unclear, even if someone would update it. Have there been 7 populated places/towns plus the Damascus region where deaths occured ? Do the places stand for their respective surroundings ? Syria has 14 governorates. No casualties there ? Not being a regular author in the article, I won't take action, but recommend to ommit the map in it's current state. --Gf1961 (talk) 07:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

so at the end somebody changed the "palestine" section in the "Foreign civilians killed " from "palestine" to "palestinian" people

so for what all that argue was for??...the next move is to read the article in that link about the "palestinian people" and understand that they has no place in the "foreign casualties" or to threat them as different from the arabs in syria.the "palestinian" nationality invented by arabs as a desperate attempt to claim the british palestine area and that is a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.119.1 (talk) 07:57, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So you want to "threat" Palestinians... Nice slip of the pen! It sums up you prejudiced argument. If there's anything clear about the Palestinians is that they are called Palestinians and that Palestine is their home country. And of course, "British Palestine" as you call it, was just Palestine, the Brits only were a Mandate power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.49.167.64 (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Kurdish casualties

What about them, the main page has 40 killed YPG fighters for months already...--93.137.179.168 (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

SOHR includes them in the rebel death toll. EkoGraf (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Rebel deaths

A question for the editor managing the rebel deaths section: does the day-per-day count of rebel casualties and sum in the end fit with the new SOHR numbers updated every month?--93.137.208.164 (talk) 09:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It fits for the most part. Sometimes the new updated overall toll given by SOHR is about 100 or so rebels higher. EkoGraf (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

that's probably the YPG ones, then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.63.238 (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The rebel day-by-day toll includes the YPG deaths as well and they are included in the overall toll. I guess the SOHR considers them rebels as well, although they do distinguish between the two in their daily counts. The latest overall toll updated as of a few days ago fit almost perfectly with the day-by-day numbers for December. EkoGraf (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

incomplete

There is no scaling in this article. For every row giving numbers of deaths, there should be a column giving the total population at the start of the conflict. Yes, the numbers are large and the deaths are horrific but numbers can only be interpreted on some sort of scale. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 16:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The article its a disaster, especialy when using SOHR numbers , they tend to contradict, there still a huge gap of 90,000 killed between the 240,000 and 330,000 killed figures. Just for the record, the table "Reported Killed by time" are 100% numbers of SOHR and they contradict with the 330k figure. Iam trying to figure out how this difference could have happened, there is a lot of work to do with all the figures, a lot of vandalism are wrecked the page.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

An anonymous IP editor has constantly been changing the figures without providing any sources and thus has been messing up the article. As for why the "Reported Killed by time" table contradicts the 330,000 figure its because those figures are only for documented deaths (the lower toll of 240,000). If you check the monthly sources you added, at the end of each report SOHR notes that it believes the true toll to be higher by (gives a number of undocumented deaths). EkoGraf (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Two days have passed and SOHR dont publish the Monthly toll of the Syrian Civil War. If someone manage to get the link please add to the table.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"Medical workers" killed Graph is not correct

These "Medicals" workers are in insurgents held areas in field hospitals they are insurgents too insurgents too no "Medical Workers"

Not all the insurgents are fighters, like in a regular Army not are all fighters — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 10:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, the statement "The government passed a law in 2012 making it illegal to render medical aid to anyone suspected to be an opposition member" smelled fishy so I went to read the linked document and nowhere it mentions anything about it. It's a relatively trivial to verify if such a law has really been passed (laws are public by definition), so this is information warfare right on Wikipedia. -Miguel, from Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.145.144.187 (talk) 06:49, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

We write per the sources. If the sources call them medical workers, we call them medical workers. If we don't have sources for verification we don't speculate if they are rebels or not. EkoGraf (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Casualties of the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120531032924/http://www.ottawacitizen.com:80/news/More+than+killed+Syria+since+March+2011/6686552/story.html to http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/More+than+killed+Syria+since+March+2011/6686552/story.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=22469&Itemid=2&task=displaynews
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131021212932/http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=422792 to http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=422792

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Highly biased towards the western media.

The article cites Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) as the Primary source of death tolls. SOHR is highly criticized for it's bias towards the west by Russia and pro Russian media outlets such as RT. It completely ignores reports from Syrian Network for Human Rights which is much less criticized organization and was cited by UN at least once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aou00000 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Not only that their monthly tolls have many flaws, the Syrian Civil War July death toll showed over 5,200 total death but it was latter chopped to 4,800.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The issue of SOHR (its reliability) in regards to numbers of casualties was discussed multiple times over the years among editors and consensus was established they are highly reliable in this regard. Notable media outlets such as the BBC, AFP, Reuters etc (considered verifiable by Wikipedia) praised SOHR over the years and called it an authoritative source on Syrian casualties. SOHR's figures have been cited by them on an almost daily basis by reliable media outlets and numerous times by the UN. In regards to their bias against Russia , that is natural since they ARE a pro-opposition activist group, while I have rarely (if at all) seen them mention anything about pro-Russia media outlets. RT itself isn't considered a reliable source in regards to Syria by Wikipedia. Lastly, while the Syrian Network for Human Rights is considered extremely biased towards Assad, Russia and Iran, which can be seen from their (sometimes) inflammatory language, the SOHR itself was attacked multiple times by SNHR and even the rebels for their reports on the numbers of casualties (some even accusing them of being pro-Assad). PS Both SOHR's English and Arabic pages say in their reports 4,800. I haven't seen any reports saying 5,200. You got a link for that figure? EkoGraf (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

They changed the number in July rebel losses. Rebels losses were reported at 2,400 dead but the sum dont fit the total, so they reduced it to 1,800 (current number). The Observatory changed the number in an update to their page the same day 1 August 2016. And no copy its available at the web of the previous version. But you can look at this, are my edits regarding those numbers and their changes.

1)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War&diff=732533565&oldid=732532808
2)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War&diff=732552276&oldid=732533565
Mr.User200 (talk) 12:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Problems with figures for Foreign Opposition Fighters killed

The figures in the Mail Online article, quoted from the SOHR, does not distinguish Syrian and foreign opposition fighters:

Another 49,547 extremist militants including non-Syrians were killed. [3]

Furthemore, the earlier SOHR casualty figures released in May combined foreign rebel opposition and ISIS fighters (Islamic State):

Casualties from fighters of Lebanese, Iraqi, Palestinian, Jordanian, Arab Gulf, North African, Egyptian, Yemeni, Sudanese and other Arab nationalities, in addition to fighters of Russian, Chinese, European, Indian, Afghan, Chechen, Caucasian, American, Australian and Turkestan nationalities; who are fighting in the ranks the “Islamic State”, Jabhat Al-Nusra, the Islamic Turkestan Party, Jund al-Aqsa organization, Jund al-Sham, al-Khadra’a battalion, Junud al-Sham al-Shishan and Islamic movements: 47095 [4]

ISIS are not considered part of the rebel opposition. Also, the SOHR casualties figures appear to only include Jihadi (takfiri) rebel groups. A better source that distinguishes rebel opposition and ISIS casualties is required. --Diamonddavej (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Like I said in the edit summary, the Mail Online article was incorrect in its description of the 49,547 figure. The figure does not refer to both Syrian and non-Syrian extremist militants. If you check virtually every previous original SOHR report for the last several years, you would see that specific breakdown figure actually refers to non-Syrian fighters only who died while fighting in the ranks of ISIS, Nusra, Jund al-Aqsa, etc. The quote from the May report you yourself quoted confirms this. Whether ISIS is considered or not considered part of the rebel opposition (at least in a descriptive sence) is debatable. ISIS was officially considered part of the rebel opposition between 2012 and 2014, before they started fighting each-other, and even today, many media outlets refer to ISIS vs all other rebels as an inter-rebel conflict (which means they do consider them rebels). At any rate, this was previously discussed and a compromise was found to label them all (including the SDF) as Anti-government combatants. As for a source that distinguishes ISIS from all other rebel dead, except for one SOHR report back in June 2015 which gave an overall toll of 8,000 ISIS dead, no other source exists that gives a breakdown of rebel dead to ISIS and non-ISIS. EkoGraf (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Just like many people have noticed SOHR its not 100% Reliable but its the best source available regarding Rebels losses. Just like I have indicated in the past, there are a lot of problems with their numbers regarding rebels combatants killed. The WP SOHR article clearly states that at the begining of the uprising the British based Observatory considered armed rebels as civilians. That´s why always will be a problematic issue in total death tolls over the War.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The SORH source is talking about death of Islamist jihadist fighters from groups containing foreign fighters on their side. The SORH source is not talking about the total number of foreign fighters killed in Syria. For example Fateh al-Sham is not composed by 100% non-syrian fighter, same thing for Islamic State,etc.... SORH has always made a difference between islamic faction like Ahar al-Sham and jihadist islamic faction like ISIS or Fateh al-Sham . Using this number of 55 875 deads fighters to talk about the total toll of foreign anti-government fighters death is completely untrue and not professional. This part of the article should be rewritten and nuanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.165.8.196 (talk) 19:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

You are incorrect. SOHR is clearly talking about foreign fighters. Beside the source stating 55875 is a figure for Arab and North African nationals who belonged to those different rebel groups, if you look at the image at the top of the source, which gives a breakdown of all fatalities, 55875 is clearly marked as (and I quote) non-Syrian fighters. EkoGraf (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Casualties of the 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319005802/http://sana.sy/eng/22/2012/02/14/400319.htm to http://sana.sy/eng/22/2012/02/14/400319.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160404195534/http://www.syrianshuhada.com/?lang=en& to http://syrianshuhada.com/?lang=en&
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.thesundaily.my/news/408099
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160203164132/http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=8636 to http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=8636
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151231195408/http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=41779 to http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=41779
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170401234557/http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=63916 to http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=63916
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141025114252/http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/ex-cumbria-doctor-killed-in-syrian-prison-1.1105173 to http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/ex-cumbria-doctor-killed-in-syrian-prison-1.1105173
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150602220352/http://jordantimes.com/128-jordanians-slain-in-syria----report to http://jordantimes.com/128-jordanians-slain-in-syria----report
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140527073232/http://jordantimes.com/two-jordanian-jihadists-killed-in-syria to http://jordantimes.com/two-jordanian-jihadists-killed-in-syria
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141029144335/http://jordantimes.com/at-least-250-jordanian-jihadists-killed--in-syria-since-2011 to http://jordantimes.com/at-least-250-jordanian-jihadists-killed--in-syria-since-2011
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160409022500/http://www.syriahr.com/?p=158110 to http://www.syriahr.com/?p=158110
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006095438/http://minivannews.com/society/jihadist-media-claims-two-more-maldivians-killed-in-syria-89915 to http://minivannews.com/society/jihadist-media-claims-two-more-maldivians-killed-in-syria-89915
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006102726/http://shaghor.com/index.php?s=26 to http://shaghor.com/index.php?s=26

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) 01:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox for 12 28 2017 Update,

|January 2017 |392 killed |955 killed |645 killed |2,001 killed |- |February 2017 |584 killed |1,491 killed |769 killed |2,854 killed |- |March 2017 |725 killed |1,188 killed |901 killed |2,826 killed |- |April 2017 |551 killed |1,282 killed |938 killed |2,786 killed |- |May 2017 |331 killed |968 killed |976 killed |2,311 killed |- |June 2017 |550 killed |970 killed |740 killed |2,282 killed |- |July 2017 |638 killed |1,165 killed |656 killed |2,477 killed |- |August 2017 |591 killed |1,311 killed |790 killed |2,707 killed |- |September 2017 |798 killed |1,288 killed |955 killed |3,055 killed |- |October 2017 |922 killed |1,580 killed |848 killed |3,369 killed |- |November 2017 |697 killed |866 killed |885 killed |2,462 killed

References

Turkish soldier casualties

I see that now Sohr reports/source is being added on the Turkish casualties which makes it confusing. Till now tge 91 reported deaths are either all directly from the Turkish media or from foreign media that used the Turkish media or/and the Turkish military as source. Adding now a Syrian Obs. group as source makes it confusing as they report different numbers then Turkish one. So it be better to discuss this. If anything, both numbers should then be mentioned as per Turkey and as per Sohr. Sohr did for example report higher Russian casualties in the past (military/soldiers) which have not been added as they were not confirmed by Russia itself. The same should be done for Turkey as well. Only cobfirned deaths (ID, names etc..) should be reported Hakan2600000 (talk) 06:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Hakan2600000 Turkish claims are not considered reliable because they are one of the combatants, hence high possibility of propaganda. Meanwhile, SOHR has been discussed numerous times during the years between Wikipedia editors and it has been agreed that SOHR is accepted by Wikipedia as one of the most reliable sources there is when it comes to territorial changes and casualties in Syria. PS You made a second cancellation of an editor's change on one Wikipedia article in less than 24 hours. Per the general 1RR rule that is applied to all Syria-related article (no more than 1 revert in less than 24 hours), if you don't cancel your last revert of me here [5] and continue discussing the issue you can be blocked from editing. So please, cancel your revert. EkoGraf (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to start a new discussion, not an edit war. I say that both losses should be mentioned. Just like how Russian soldier deaths are being confirmed by the country self Hakan2600000 (talk) 07:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

And I didn’t start the edit war. I did not do the first edit, I just added the Turkish source and if you or someone else doesn’t agree on this we should discuss it Hakan2600000 (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Well revert the edit then. But how do I get blocked from discussing it? Thats what the talk page is for Hakan2600000 (talk) 08:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

You didn't understand me. See Wikipedia:Edit warring. You made two cancellations of other editors work in less than 24 hours (whether in whole or in part) here [6] and here [7]. This constitutes a violation of the 1RR rule (see WP:1RR) and edit warring. I see now that you have canceled your last revert which is good and I thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Well no problem. I do still want to discuss this problem (atleast for me it is). And I hope someone else wants it as well Hakan2600000 (talk) 10:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

User Hakan you have been blocked several times for Sockpupetry. Please stop vandalizing Turkish related articles.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

In the interests of balance, shouldn't the "Civilian Deaths" section include Syrian government or impartial observers?

Currently The Urge to Purge (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The two tables given in the article that include statistics for civilian deaths caused by each combatant currently both come from pro-opposition sources. That hardly seems in keeping with NPOV as there is a high liklihood of bias from such sources.

I was just wondering if there were any official figures from the Syrian government, its allies, or non-aligned observers that could be included for the sake of showing both sides. Granted, Wikipedia in general seems to have a preference for Western media outlets in terms of what it considers reliable sources, so some pro-opposition bias is unavoidable, but there should at least be some acknowledgement of the other side. Only having pro-opposition statistics is not neutral POV. If statistics from one source with a clearly stated alignment are permitted in the article, but statistics from other sources with different alignments are not, then Wikipedia editors are not maintaining a neutral POV. The Urge to Purge (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

In short, there are no pro-Syrian government or non-aligned statistics on civilian casualties, otherwise we would include them too of course. The only existing statistics are from pro-opposition sources. However, the pro-opposition SOHR is considered by reliable media outlets to be an authoritative source on the conflict's casualties and a Wikipedia consensus was reached long ago that in regard to casualties and territorial changes SOHR is reliable. EkoGraf (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

There are reports on the civilian casualties and the counting inaccuracies that should be stated in the article. Rupert Loup (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)