Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

Russia is not a belligerent

There is no official confirmation of this. 216.165.209.210 (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Russia not confirming anything doesn't mean that they are not a belligerent, as per 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. On top of that, they haven't explicitly denied it. There are enough reliable sources from other parties to warrant inclusion in the article. The responsible user may also check the sources and choose to believe what they read accordingly.

Moscow confirmed it had "experts" on the ground in Syria, its long-time ally in the Middle East. But Russia has declined to comment on the scale and scope of its military presence. Damascus denied Russians were involved in combat, but a Syrian official said the presence of experts had increased in the past year.

— http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/10/us-mideast-crisis-syria-exclusive-idUSKCN0R91H720150910

--BurritoBazooka (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree - Russia is a supporter, they send logistics and advisors, but don't take part in the fighting.GreyShark (dibra) 21:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

As Russia began active bombings in Syria, it is now definitely a belligerent.GreyShark (dibra) 12:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Does that make Israel a belligerent as well, which has been bombing government targets for years? I'm so confused. FunkMonk (talk) 14:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Both Israel and Russia are belligerents. Israel an anti-government belligerent and Russia a pro-government belligerent. DylanLacey (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Then why is Israel not in the infobox? FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear FunkMonk, i was really wondering where is your once-a-month contribution on the topic of Israel-related conspiracies. I guess the blog-press was busy with real world events, rather than promoting the concept of Zionist entity's pact with the Baathist regime of Asad, or perhaps its secret support to the Opposition, or even to the [ Al-Nusra Front. I forgot to mention all that happening while the ISIL head (ISIL's head is funny huh?) is a Zionist agent named Simon something (whose photo is stolen from some innocent Jordanian guy btw). Anyway let me know when you locate Israeli navy base and airforce bases in Syria making 20 airstrikes per day thus equating it to Russia. Also i missed Israeli announcement on intervention and actual bombing in Syria (not some conspiracy "bombing" claims, denied by both Ba'athist regime and Israel altogether). Good luck.GreyShark (dibra) 18:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Because Israel's conflict with the Syrian government predates and is unrelated to the civil war. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

By that logic, why is the US a belligerent, when its conflict with IS/AQ in Iraq predates the civil war? FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Because it is actively participating in Syria's infighting. Israel's conflict with Syria is due to the latter's support for Hezbollah. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, they are targeting what is just al Qaeda in Iraq, which is an old enemy. They're not fighting any other side (Nusra is also an AQI offshoot), and yes, they're helping the Kurds a bit, but the Israelis are helping Syrian rebels as well. There is no difference in their degree of participaing in "Syrian infighting". FunkMonk (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The US is actively supporting one or more parties in the infighting against one or more other parties. Israel's alleged "help" is miles away from belligerance, and its airstrikes are (as mentioned) related to either Hezbollah or crossborder fire. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The Israelis are treating wounded Syrian rebels in their hospitals, and also meet with their delegates. This is help and coordination, just like the Americans do with the Kurds, plus the five rebels they trained... FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that this "coordination" remains merely speculation: Are you really comparing treating wounded fighters with pounding ISIS? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm comparing pounding Syrian government forces with pounding any other force in the war, during the war. Even North Korea is in the infobox. That should put things in perspective. FunkMonk (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

North Korea should not be in the infobox, they are not fighting. At best they might be selling arms, but they have no money to support themselves, and for sure not a failing government on the other side of the globe. Legacypac (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Cuban involvement

Here are a couple of links detailing Cuban involvement on the Syrian government's side: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/16/cuba-is-intervening-in-syria-to-help-russia-it-s-not-the-first-time-havana-s-assisted-moscow.html http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/14/cuban-military-forces-deployed-to-syria-to-operate-russian-tanks-say-sources/

I'd add Cuba to the list of countries that "support" the government, but unfortunately, the data for the war is in one of those infoboxes meaning it can't be edited. BGManofID (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

the infobox can be edited, but on it's own page. It sure looks like Cuba is putting boots on the ground. Legacypac (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• "U.S. official had confirmed to Fox News" Er, we need independent confirmation for this. Anonymous officials and Fox News are the epitome of unreliability. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

RT is mocking this report, which only foxnews and various wingnut blogs are repeating. Legacypac (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call The Daily Beast a wingnut blog. However, Pres. Obama is refuting the report. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

When I saw the Daily Beast as a ref it gave credibility, but then I read that they only reported Fox News reported, which was correct, but does not verify Cuba sent troops at all, only that Fox reported that. Legacypac (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Awkward distribution of photos

When I passed through article, I had feeling its very one-sided, like being pamphlet for one side. Could article deliver more balanced distribution of photos or we are aiming here at one side ? --PetarM (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be more specific. I just reviewed the photos and found photos of regime and rebels, as well as Kurds, refugees, wounded, etc. If photos have sides, all sides are represented pretty well. The only group jumping out at me as underrepresented seems to be ISIL. Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Duplication of work on image intemplate; more up-to-date version available elsewhere on Wikipedia

@Everyone @BlueHypercane761, Rob984, and DuckZz: Hi. There is a second template, at Template:Syrian Civil War map‎ that seems to duplicate the image you are using and updating in your infobox. That other template's image is updated more frequently, so you might want to use it instead of duplicating the work. Even if not, you might want to collaborate with the Wikipedians curating that template and image, if only not to duplicate effort, and not waste time. —Boruch Baum (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

@Boruch Baum: Hello again. The image used is actually still the same image commons:File:Syrian civil war.png and whenever that image is updated both templates will have the new image. It seems that the date is the only thing wrong just like before and so i'm going to change the caption so it matches what has been done on Template:Syrian Civil War map.

@FugeeCamp: With all the usage on all the pages for this image, maybe the right thing would be for the image producers to include a text layer in the image to visibly display a date is some corner. —Boruch Baum (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Houthis ?!

When I saw that the Houthis were listed in the template as an "allied militia", it sounded strange, so I looked at the reference, and after examining the reference, it seems even more dubious. Because I don't know the criteria used for inclusion in the list, I would like a consensus to remove them from the template. My points in favor are:

1. The source is a Saudi-funded outlet, and the Saudi are both strongly ant-Houthi and strongly anti-Syria (The cited Jerusalem Post article is explicitly just a cut-out for the Saudi report).
2. If significance of contribution matters, I can't help wonder how the Houthis could possibly contribute anything meaningful to the Syrian regime.
3. The report itself, and now I'm pasting from http://eng.majalla.com/2013/05/article55241957, says:
   1. "The Houthi participation is symbolic"
   2. "may not be of real value"
   3. "has a great moral, symbolic and ideological value"

—Boruch Baum (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Houthis are part of a different conflict in Yemen. Legacypac (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Turkmens, Turkey and Kurds

It's finally pleasing to see Turkey not occupying the same column with PKK and PYD as Turkey's air force also started military operations against YPG.(Turkish PM: We have concocted 2 operations against YPG and this may be taken further - AlJazeera) I've mentioned it is not plausible to add Turkey to the same column a long time ago in the talk page but me and my resources have been ignored, my edits have been reverted and my entry to the talk page has been literally deleted.

Now, I see the infobox again lacks the Syrian Turkmen Brigades which I had also given numerous resources on topic, both academical papers, strategical analysis, news reports and state speeches. I have checked for why it has been deleted and found no explanation, not a single word. Interprating this with optimist thoughts that the editor might erased it thinking that they had gone inactive; I have added the Syrian Turkmen Brigades again and I'm sharing new and up to date information about them (Like the ones I have shared in August and September were not up to date enough.) Here are two:

• Status in Northern Syria (relates to the condition of Turkmen) - ORSAM
• Military Structure of Syrian Turkmens (relates to the current status of Brigades and the areas they currently fight) - ORSAM

Thanks. Berkaysnklf (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Propagandists working the page?

Does the (so far) paper Alliance of the "Democratic forces" really merit being isted as the main opposition force? Putting large, real, alliances lik the Islamic Front in the back? The organizations listed under it are wrong, as well - far from the entire FSA have joined. Also, who wrote that Nusra is the "main opposition force"? Feels ike Moscow and Pentagon fanboys/employees are working this page. Everyone else have to step up their game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.0.174 (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

France supported the FSA

Why is France not listed as a supporter of the FSA in the infobox, considering that it was said by Hollande that France has delivered arms to them since 2012? Esn (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Various countries support the FSA with arms, but we have been listing them when they engage in combat, and when part of the Anti-ISIL coalition, over with the Kurds because that is the group most closely coordinating with these interveners. A multi-sided conflict is hard to fully display all the inter connections. Legacypac (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

I cut paragraph breaks, reducing the intro to just three paragraphs. Feel free to express your thoughts. --George Ho (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why the lede expanded. Now it looks too massive for all readers. I can't figure out which key points of the ongoing conflict are most significant. Per MOS:LEAD, even when the topic (i.e. the conflict) is complex, we must consider how to concisely introduce the conflict to readers. Ideally, no more than four paragraphs is enough. --George Ho (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

One paragraph was moved deservingly to a section discussing the related subtopic. The intro has an extra paragraph; ideally, no more than four paragraph would be enough to introduce readers to the ongoing civil war. --George Ho (talk) 22:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

antisemantism

"The Syrian Civil War \ is an ongoing international[78] armed conflict taking place in Syria. "

International war is not a civil war. Please fix this obvious semantic lie.

responding to unsigned request. A civil war can and does often involve other state actors. It is a civil war because it involves fighting between mostly internal forces trying to control Syria, not the invasion or attack by another external govt against Syria's government (international conflict). Legacypac (talk) 06:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

While the term "Civil war" is not defined by any 'authority' it is widley understood to be a fight between the citicens of the country involved. IE: in the instant outside force(s) is/are involved it stops being a civil war. It becomes inter-national. That is: between two or more nations.

It is now quite widely reported, ISIS and it's 'offshoots' are hirering fighters. They come from every corner of the world. Known Arabic countries are supporting them. This is a mercenary army against the governement. The US, England, France, Australia and Russia are bombing in Syria. The Turks are bombing the Kurds in Syria. The Kurds are attacking Syria. Apparetly Iranians are fighting in Syria. Please continue the list.

The 'army' of a few hundred, maybe tousands that once may have been formed of actual Syrian citizens has long been dissolved. As we see it in the reports, there is no such thing.

This is not a civil war at all. Please change the misleading title of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.8.39.83 (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

A Civil War is a war which is between opposing faction who all inhabit the same country. In international war is when different countries are at war with each other. NOTE: An International War does not have to be a world war. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Infobox

The SDF is not an umbrella group for the Syrian opposition, it is a coalition to fight ISIS in eastern Syria. The PYD leader said the collapse of the Assad regime would be a disaster, and the YPG have fought alongside and received arms from the regime. Just yesterday the SNC accused the PYD of supporting Assad. The Al Sanadid forces in the SDF are supporters of the Syrian regime. Dividing the opposition between the territory controlled by the SDF and the Army of Conquest ignores all the opposition groups outside the east and northwest of the country. I hope this info box can be split back into separate columns for the Kurds and the mainstream Syrian opposition.--109.157.229.116 (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I thought the FSA was part of Euphrates Volcano, and the PYD is fighting Assad in northeastern Syria, but ok. Perhaps I was a little too to follow up there. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The entire FSA is not part of the SDF, only the Syrian Arab Coalition is. In actuallity only some 4000 or so FSA troops are part of the SDF. The infobox should be moved back to the version with 4 columns.100.35.127.79 (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it somewhere, but I believe to have heard or read somewhere that Al Nusra had allied themselves with ISIL? It is stated that they seem to want a similar thing as ISIL, just not through as brutal means as them. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 06:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Syria Rebels Threaten to Wipe Out Shiite, Alawite Towns

Please read WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
“Rebels have committed various crimes and have on multiple occasions called for genocide and ethnic cleansing of Christians, Alawites, Shiite, Druze and other minorities” Despite stating such reports of human rights outrages by the rebels, Wikipedia continues to use the statement that the “vast majority of the abuses having been committed by the Syrian government”. If this comment was ever true, latest press and media reports increasing call it into question. So, in light of new information, are Wikipedia ready to reconsider their one-sided statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.50.196 (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Committed atrocities are far difference than threatened atrocities. In terms of committed atrocities, Syria's Government has still done the most by a large margin. If threatened atrocities were taken into account, IS would have already killed 5+ billion people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.188.171 (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC) And this statement is based on WHAT DATA??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.8.39.83 (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Sorry, but the above comment seems less-than-clear. Are you asking: WHAT DATA are Wikipedia using to defend their statement that the "vast majority of the abuses having been committed by the Syrian government”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.59.86 (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC) But the comment from Ann Harrison, Amnesty's deputy director for the Middle East and North Africa, is not complete. For it states: "While the vast majority of war crimes and other gross violations continue to be committed by government forces," than goes on to say, "our research also points to an escalation in abuses by armed opposition groups". If Wikipedia will not delete, perhaps it could reproduce the missing comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.101.189 (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Special Operations Forces to Help Fight ISIS in Syria

do they saing what they saing?? [1]} or somebody hacked the NYT website? All the time was palid that US will fight against ISIS not will help ISIS faight . This support fo IS was put in UN by Natanyhoo exactly a year ago when he say to defeat ISIS is to win the battle and lose the war

How Naive are those explanation that Obama sending those 50 comandos to find those 5 modrate rebsls US Army trained for 500 milion in the last 5 years..[2] ?

Please update the article if you know what is lie what is not. 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 (talk) 03:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

People that understand the truth from all the lies - better point them in the direction of the US government? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.230.240 (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Escalation in abuses - by both sides

The article says that, "While the vast majority of war crimes and other gross violations continue to be committed by government forces", but for some reason leaves out, "our research also points to an escalation in abuses by armed opposition groups". To avoid charge of being a vehicle for FSA propaganda, should not Wikipedia reproduce the missing part of the quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.230.240 (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Update Summary Box

Harper is no longer Prime Minister of Canada. It should be updated to Justin Trudeau — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.3.149 (talk) 11:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Done Jp16103 (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Syrian Civil War → War in Syria – There are at least three international interventions in Syria, why we call it a civil war? Jenda H. (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - this has been discussed a hundred times already, read the archives. Every civil war in history has had foreign intervention. FunkMonk (talk) 09:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - per FunkMonk argument. Gizmocorot (talk) 11:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is the COMMONNAME. This also counts as a civil by the less used definition as at least two sides claim to represent the people. Also per FunkMonk's argument. Banak (talk) 12:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - common name of conflict.--Staberinde (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I suggest a move discussion history be placed on the talk-page here as was done for Talk:Libyan Civil War (2011). Syrian Civil War is the WP:COMMONNAME here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

  I added the move history above of the past requested moves. To be fair the last move request took place in 2013 it still doesn't change the facts though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• WP:SNOW oppose per above. ansh666 23:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose As WP:COMMONNAME Gazkthul (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose because in the OP post they said "interventions". They are interventions because it is a Civil war, otherwise they would be sides in the war - ie a war between countries. By Regan's count (in 2000), there have been 138 intrastate wars since the end of World War II, and outside parties have intervened in roughly two-thirds of them. The United States alone has been involved in 35. Legacypac (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

References

• Strong oppose this is not about the general topic of "war" in Syria, for which we would need to add several THOUSAND years worth of material. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Comment many civil wars have foreign interventionary forces. That is not unusual. That we have foreign intervening forces has no relevance to the fact that it is a civil war. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

War was planned by USA a while ago

Wesley Clark talks about it. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This comes from a source which also reports on this kind of thing, so at first glance it seems about as reliable as Alex Jones. Whether it is true or not, we need a reliable source before we can add it to the article. I'd also like to see a longer video where more context is shown. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I found a section about it in Wesley Clark's article here. I still don't think it is major enough to be added to this article. It appears to be an account of a conversation about military strategy he wrote in a book of his in 2003. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why you compare Democracy Now with that hoax.. Anyways, he was Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO, so seems to be important enough person whose account is not irrelevant. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, the most context I could gather was from that Alexander Higgins post (he's the guy who put it on Youtube in the first place, and the post he made about it is here, and is mentioned in that Youtube video's description). Democracy Now does not provide me with any more context. TV channels broadcast interviews in full - it's that person's own words, a single politician's own words, who went on to run for president a year after he first published the claims. For all I know, it's an out-of-context snippet that Alexander Higgins (a blogger at best) spun into something greater. That's not journalism. Wesley Clark was also a presidential candidate, and that is the capacity in which he made that claim (in his book, not Democracy Now) - so there is also political gain to be made. Anybody can write a book with a controversial claim to make lots of money if their name is already big. Finally, there's also the matter of there being a bunch of other countries which were invaded by the US during this period but not mentioned in that list, and also countries on that list which were never invaded by the US. So, it is clear the list, whatever it was, formed no real 'plan' for military strategy. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

User:BurritoBazooka why you 'still don't think' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this, regardless if its true or not, is best left out (at least for now). Unless one can find MULTIPLE hard sources, this is a volatile claim. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Volatile? [3] good enough? 176.221.76.3 (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

it is hard enough for any hardhead - add it to header.99.90.196.227 (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Relevance. It's better suited for the Wesley Clark article and it's already there. I have no doubt that the West is using civil wars as part of its bait and bleed strategy all over the world, but much like Wesley Clark, that's a personal belief. I don't have hard evidence or sources, so I'm not going to add it to the article. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

change required minimum work. We have the word taking already in header

• .. taking place in Syria.
• .Taking out Syria was a Pentagon plan.

the word 'place' may be used in

• and place puppet gov.
• .Taking out Syria and place puppet gov. was a Pentagon plan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Even assuming the list is completely true and valid, still, there is still nothing to suggest that this list of seven countries is relevant to this specific war in Syria. For all the reader knows, war in Syria would be inevitable even if the US never made this list in 2001. Original research is being committed in suggesting that this war has to do with that list, without evidence of that specific fact. Perhaps Clark's list is more relevant in one of these articles:

• Interventionism (politics)
• American imperialism
• Foreign policy of the United States

--BurritoBazooka (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

you can add it there too, if you decide, but do not dilute now the subject of discussion.

you are not supposed to think if 'completely true and valid' you supposed to check if it is verifiable and/or sourced in reliable sources. You argue before it is not WP:RS now you going clear against policy with your 'completely true and valid'. You as log-in wiki editor you are assumed to not having the ability to consider what is true what not (Is it right?) . What is, WP:OR to add word 'out' which is exactly like Clark is quoted. How do you propose it to be worded? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I said. For the purposes of this discussion, I meant "okay, let's assume hypothetically this is true and valid, and then see whether it can be in the article". I said it is OR because even if this list never existed, the war in Syria could still have happened. There is nothing linking this list to this specific war in Syria, even if the seven countries was quoted in every major news outlet and every politician was repeating it over and over again until somebody important says "the current civil war in Syria is part of that list". That link is only a conspiracy theory, even if the list is true and valid. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The linking list of several countries Pentagon plan to do war is a word 'Syria'.

Wesley Clark used words 'war' 'taking out' 'Syria' . What is OR to use exact quote if derivation of it (still in exact context) you see somehow as against wp policy? Do you compose argument that he used several countries as a list ('that this list of seven countries is relevant') and taking one state of the list here - Syria - will be OR because of what ? I can't think what nonsenses (as i do not see here OR) perhaps cheery picking may be persuasive for confused minds? Why do you think now using Syria out of list is OR? Is using c from a b c d e is WP:OR? To have contextual context one cant write everything what is in WP:RS but need to do selection. Syria war there and Syria war here match. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Also Clark mention the paper he refer to, as he get the spoken info, is kind of secret, so perhaps secret argument may be used against; but then you have to delete Washington papers and false flag lord Tolken bay and may other leaked army crimes against humanity. I do not say any our servicemen is crooked war criminal - i believe most are good and i know some very nice persons. Anyway the policy is made behind Pentagon in some shadow assembles which servicemen used blindly to follow.

Also we cant go anywhere if you will use antysemantic conspiracy theory phrase. The corect term is de conspiracy. The Clark show existing secret conspiracy, as any army conspire , do not forward its plan in open. This should be obvious and such empty argument discounted from any serious dispute. Again any army conspire and do not have plan open to public. So confirm you will use semantic or put dictionary of your antisemantic terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

A proven conspiracy theory is a conspiracy... The part of WP:OR I'm referring to is WP:SYNTH. What you are synthesising is that there is a link between this 2011-present Syrian civil war and the future war mentioned in 2001. This war might not be a part of the US plan. No sources suggest that this civil war is part of that US plan - it could still be another party's "plan". I can't state my case more clearly than that - the link being drawn between Clark's list and this war is WP:SYNTH. Also, point I haven't raised before is that list said "seven countries in five years" -- five years after 2001 is 2006, so if we want to take Clark's word as truth, then a war must have happened in Syria before 2006.

A similar case is how in Cecil John Rhodes' Last Will and Testament, it is written that Britain should extend its influence through the British Empire, taking over the rest of the world. Is the UN Security Council a secret British plot? That's WP:SYNTH until you find a source proving that. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I getting impression that you are not familiar with the subject. What Wesley Clark did say? He did not say the war will be in the year 2001. Do you draw WP:SYNTH because deconspired false flag gas attack, higher than in Libya resistance and world powers opposition make impossible to finalize the stated Pentagon goal in Clark mentioned time frame? The goal will be never achieved, but this do not change the fact what he say before the present war. Do You argue that W Clark mentioned another war to 'take out' Syria not this war to 'take out' Syria? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, but it still doesn't make it definitive. Anyone with a straight mind could predict something to go wrong somewhere in that neighbourhood. Yes, granted.. I'm stating the obvious in a more general way but the principle is still the same. Because someone made a list means very little, escpecially on a wiki page which is supposed to be objiective and sourced. And even if it was true, and the US planned all of this all along.... wether that is true when they either achievd their goal, or failed it. But regardless of that, it doesn't change anything about the war currently in progress. And furthermore, like Bazookaburrito explained, the war in Syria could just as easily have taken place even if the US was drawing rozes on fences... Or do you think those arab people with their believes are only doing this because "Its the US' grandmaster plan". Don't get me wrong, I think the US certainly washes their hands in dirt in some way.. but its not being added until PROVEN! 195.109.63.17 (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Anyone with a straight mind could predict something to go wrong somewhere in that neighbourhood. Wow! We have a psychic here! They MUST be right :) 178.148.10.191 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• we'll probably only find out < You probably not even then, but not us. What you pushing is original research in reverse. We need WP:OM to flag this.
• doing this because "Its the US' grandmaster plan" < more, it is grand Israel plan =to defeat ISIS [] is to win the battle and lose the war

Topic being discussed here is very relevant for the Foreign involvement section of this article.. so no need to talk about delegating it to other (maybe also relevant) articles. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok and after that to header. Go and edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

rename page

The following discussion 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.

---

this isn't a traditional civil war. this involves transnational and many states. as well as frequent spillovers in neighbouring countries. it should be called "Syrian War (2011-present)" or "War in Syria (2011-present)"--Stefvh96 (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sheesh, read the section right above this one. FunkMonk (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2015 (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.

Turkey Support of ISIS

Infobox should have Turkey as supported of ISIS, there are undeniable evidences:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/links-between-turkey-isis-now-195700510.html http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/18/turkey-cut-islamic-state-supply-lines-erdogan-isis Dafranca (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC) http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/19/turkeys-informal-isis-support 179.105.82.13 (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You received no response, and below you a separate discussion took place about whether Turkey should be listed under support of Kurds, somehow the deccision was made to continue listing Turkey as a Kurdish support. This article like so much of wikipedia when it comes to anything controversial in geopolitics, its essentially laughable and worthless pro-USA propaganda. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar are at the very least NOT in favor of the Kurds, and a strong case can be made to list all 3 states as being more or less with ISIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.52.222 (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Counting Iran's casualties

Perhaps someone with more knowledge could shed some light on this situation. Currently, the infobox displays the number of Iranian KIA as 146. However, this excludes the approximately 385 Afghan and Pakistani troops who died fighting for the IRGC. How, exactly, should we categorize the Afghan and Pakistani fighters? They appear to be in a similar situation to the French Foreign Legion, and so should count as part of the Iranian military:

• They get paid salaries by the Iranian military. Specifically they get between $500 to $1,000 a month, plus naturalization papers.
• They undergo training in Iran, and are equipped by the IRGC.
• They are led by IRGC officers.
• They wear something like a uniform, even though their uniforms usually don't have IRGC insignia.
• Some organizations (such as the Levantine Group and Washington Institute) flat-out refer to the two "auxiliary brigades" (Fatimiyun brigade [Afghans] and Zaynabiyun brigade [Pakistanis]) as IRGC formations/Iranian operatives.
• On the other hand, sometimes (but not always) Iran denies that the Afghans are IRGC members, and they're apparently not considered citizens at the times of their deaths.
• On the other other hand, they're still given state funerals involving uniformed IRGC personnel.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/31/world/meast/syria-afghan-fighter/ http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/shiite-combat-casualties-show-the-depth-of-irans-involvement-in-syria
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-afghan-shiite-fighters-in-syria
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSkrFNBXAAAxnT6.jpg:large

So? Should the number of Iranian military KIA be listed as 146+ or 531+?-Nihlus1 (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

They are equipped, trained, payed and sometimes led by the IRGC, but they are not organisationally part of the IRGC. Some have even identified them to be now part of Hezbollah Afghanistan [4]. Also, most reliable sources when pointing out IRGC dead they are referring to the Iranians and not the non-Iranians who are talked about in a separate capacity. Based on all this plus the overall vagueness, Iranian military dead need to be separate from the other non-Iranians. EkoGraf (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Turkey Support of ISIS

Infobox should have Turkey as supported of ISIS, there are undeniable evidences:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/links-between-turkey-isis-now-195700510.html http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/18/turkey-cut-islamic-state-supply-lines-erdogan-isis Dafranca (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC) http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/19/turkeys-informal-isis-support 179.105.82.13 (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You received no response, and below you a separate discussion took place about whether Turkey should be listed under support of Kurds, somehow the deccision was made to continue listing Turkey as a Kurdish support. This article like so much of wikipedia when it comes to anything controversial in geopolitics, its essentially laughable and worthless pro-USA propaganda. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar are at the very least NOT in favor of the Kurds, and a strong case can be made to list all 3 states as being more or less with ISIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.52.222 (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2015

Turkey has allies within the listed group of oppositions, including Saudi Arabia. It is a known fact. Mark Van Muur (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion ?

Please read the article and express your opinion, is there any grounds to consider these facts as supporting IS? Thank. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/research-paper-isis-turke_b_6128950.html

in addition http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/turkey-has-spent-years-allowing-jihadist-groups-to-flourish-so-beware-its-real-reasons-for-shooting-a6747161.html

www.infowarscom/former-nato-commander-turkey-is-supporting-isis/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.3 (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Inappropriate reference link

Reference link (a) 143 under Course Of Events does not provide specific support for the statement and should be removed. I think it is just an editing artifact. The same link appears in the next sentence, to which it is actually relevant. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.103.180 (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Ceasefire attempt 2012

This section starts off somewhat abruptly - "the peace plan" with no background could probably be improved. Also the sentence introducing Kofi Annan feels abrupt. Think this could be cleaned up a little (first impression while reading through article). -KaJunl (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

also I don't love that Friends of Syria is mentioned without definition -KaJunl (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

NPOV & Uncertainty

Article says, "On 24 November 2015, Turkey reportedly shot down a Russian warplane due to repeated airspace violation.[564]" The word "reportedly" is used, but also "reportedly" that claim is false. The article says, "due to." But the cause of this action is uncertain. The "due to" could be Turkey's desire to protect Turks living in Syria, and the Turkish explanation could be a "prophasis," and not the real reason. Claims such as made in this article require at least 2 reliable secondary sources -- the sources are not reliable if coming from prejudiced or ax-to-grind sources. And there should not be ostensibly reliable sources contradicting the claims. Who knows what happened & why? Was this the shoot down after a 30 second fly over a tiny protrusion of Turkish land into Syria -- shoot down occurring after Russian plane was gone and over Syria? These questions lead me to propose that the sentence be changed to "On 24 November, 2015, Turkey reportedly shot down a Russian warplane. Turkey justifies this action as a response to airspace violation. Russia denies the alleged violation." I so changed the entry for the editors' consideration.(EnochBethany (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2015

There is credible information regarding the list of allies ISIS has. Turkey should be listed as an ally towards ISIS, Turkey has been purchasing all of the oil ISIS is able to capture or produce. Mark Van Muur (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Turkish businesses have been trading in gray market oil, but this kind of thing happens in all wars. Turkey is not militarily supporting ISIL and the infoboxes reflect which countries and militias are aligned with each other. Turkey is not fighting (generally) but is providing base access to the US and maybe other NATO forces soon. Legacypac (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Light grammar cleanup

I've been reading through the article and making mostly minor grammar changes. So far mostly consistency for things like capitalization. Feel free to change anything if you think I picked the wrong standard in cases where things were being done two ways - my preference is just that you keep it consistent throughout the article. Maybe it'd be worthwhile to have some sort of list somewhere of the preferred spelling/transliteration/capitalization for common terms? Not sure. -KaJunl (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• **Numbers - words vs. digits is not consistent, do we have a solid rule for when to use which?
• "Governorate"
  • Which is correct, typically: "governorate" or "the governorate"? I notice that this isn't entirely consistent. For example "in the Aleppo Governorate" but "in Ar-Raqqah Governorate." I changed the one instance of "in the Aleppo Governorate" to "in Aleppo Governorate" for consistency with the rest of the article, but I didn't search extensively for other inconsistencies here.
  • I capitalized all instances of "governorate" after a name ("Aleppo Governorate" instead of "Aleppo governorate"). This wasn't done consistently at all, but the capitalized version seemed more common. The only ones I didn't change were the plurals ("Aleppo and Raqqah governorates") which I was less sure about. Feel free to change this to whatever is best; I just didn't like the lack of consistency.
• "Syrian Army"
  • Capitalized "Army" throughout the article. Previously was not done consistently.
• Raqqa vs. Raqqah
  • Changed a few instances of "Raqqa" to "Raqqah" but I'm not sure which is most appropriate. Also, is there consensus that Ar-Raqqah is better than Al-Raqqah? And is there a preference for when "al" or "ar" are included/left off? I don't know enough about Arabic or the Wikipedia conventions for such things.
• al-Nusra Front
  • "al-Nusra Front" was most common but there were some "Al Nusra Front" and "al-Nusra front." I went with "al-Nusra Front."
• al-Qusayr
  • Used al-Qusayr, changed an instance of "al-Quseir"
• What is a "column"? This line confuses me: "Before the column was stopped, government forces had captured the high ground at Maaret al-Arteek." However, I might just not be familiar with the terminology.
• ISIS vs. ISIL
  • Have *not* made any changes here but is it worth discussing? Should we only use one or the other or switch back and forth?
• US vs. U.S.
  • Noticed this in the "ISIL offensives and U.S. airstrikes (June 2014 – January 2015)" section, but I'm sure it's an issue throughout. Also, UK and UN. Not sure what the preference is for periods but it's switching back and forth within paragraphs. I tried to change a few but didn't want to bother moving forward until I was sure what it's supposed to be..
• Defense vs. defence
  • Just noting this and hopefully someone else can take a look.
• Reporting, censoring, and propaganda section
  • Didn't love the tone/grammar here, so I rephrased it a bit, but I'd appreciate someone taking a look.

Belligerents - Axis of Resistance - Russia

I think this section can be expanded/redone. Doesn't need to be huge, but I don't feel like the couple of sentences there currently paint a good overall summary picture. -KaJunl (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Belligerents

The belligerents section is beginning to feel a bit outdated. The section on the Kurds probably could be expanded to talk more about Rojava and recent history. The ISIS section has some seemingly random lines, like the bit about Palmyra, that probably fit best elsewhere.

Overall, I feel like we should make sure that this section always lines up nicely against the "main belligerents" section of the chart on the right, seems to be talking about the same groups/groups them together the same, etc.

-KaJunl (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion? 2

new event - http://www.euronews.com/2015/11/27/turkey-detains-journalists-who-allege-army-lorries-carried-weapons-for-isil/ - I still can't find the original Turkish article, in Euronews article said about "intelligence agency MIT trucks carrying weapons"...

Douma massacre page, call for input...

2015 Douma market air strikes, call for input/edits to get article in shape. Rename to 2015 Douma market massacre?

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2015

Remove Recep Erdogan from infobox supporting kurds and place in column supporting ISIL, as per discussion

Mathaddict (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. a boat that can float! (happy holidays) 14:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit (minor)

this article is on a list of articles needing help with spelling and grammar. I just went through the lede with a fairly light hand. I do not believe that I have introduced any meaning changes so I figure these are not reverts, but perhaps people may want to take a look, given the contentious nature of the topic. I am stopping here for now. Elinruby (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! -KaJunl (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

rename page

The following discussion 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.

---

this isn't a traditional civil war. this involves transnational and many states. as well as frequent spillovers in neighbouring countries. it should be called "Syrian War (2011-present)" or "War in Syria (2011-present)"--Stefvh96 (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sheesh, read the section right above this one. FunkMonk (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2015 (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.

Rojava

Given that Rojava is listed as one of the 4 main belligerents, after reading this article, I feel the topic is not adequately covered. I know that there is the separate "Rojava" article, but I think the amount of territory currently in YPG control warrants some more information on the group in the Syrian Civil War article. -KaJunl (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• @KaJunl: Feel free to improve and update the Syrian Civil War#Syrian_Kurds section, but restrict yourself to the most important things to know and the best sources, without adding any bloat. PanchoS (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't really feel knowledgeable enough about the subject matter to add much content (although I'm much more knowledgeable than I was more that I've read through the whole article - thanks guys) but hoping someone else gets a chance to go through and revise, or can offer input here about the best way to edit the section. -KaJunl (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

To clarify - I was referring to the article as a whole, not just in the belligerents section. The course of events seems to not give appropriate weight to the YPG either. -KaJunl (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup issue

I may take some time to get to this, but the prose in the article needs some serious cleanup. It is right now mostly in proseline format, and it needs to be rewritten into a more natural narrative. I have tagged the article as such to alert interested editors to the problem, and am leaving this notice here explaining what needs to be done to improve the text. The information is all good, it just needs some work for stylistic purposes. --Jayron32 17:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Turkey on same side as the Kurds?

Erdogan's "air force has mostly bombed the Kurds" rather than ISIS, according to "The Economist". Why are they on the same side in the infobox? Esn (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Excellent point; it makes no sense to include them on the same side. They should go in the opposition column. DylanLacey (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

They're in the "coalition", though, and separation with a line should be enough. Other groups in the same columns have fought as well (FSA, Nusra, etc.). FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

What is actually happening should take precedence over what is theoretically happening. Turkey supports the Sunni rebels and opposes the Syrian Kurds. Esn (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

So you'll remove Turkey from the coalition? FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

As little sense as it makes, it makes less sense to remove Turkey from the coalition it is officially part of. I suggest we throw in a footnote and leave Turkey in column 4. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Depends on which Kurds - the infographic here is pretty good at explaining a complex situation. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33690060 Legacypac (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's at least find a solution that does not involve splitting the coalition. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Turkey and PKK are not allies, but opponents. Turkey and YPG, are not allies. Rojava and Turkey are not allies either. YPG has close ties with PKK, a lot of the YPG people, are saying that they are the same people, and it is from the conflict with Turkey that they have gained their experience. PKK and Turkey are opponents for 40 years now. In addition even now, Turkey is attacking PKK in Iraq and Turkey and PKK is attacking Turkey, in Turkey. It is POV to add Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK and Turkey in the same alliance. I will post a few images that show the, imprisoned in Turkey, leader and founder of PKK in banners, flags and houses of the YPG.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/files/live/sites/almonitor/files/images/almpics/2013/10/ypgocalan.jpg http://www.davidmeseguer.com/wp-content/uploads/Asayis2.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8b9sdEVnfow/VYv9x7L-HFI/AAAAAAAAASI/jy5hvwXb1Ko/s1600/ku3.jpg.

Rojava is YPG, BF is YPG plus FSA, PKK is PKK, so there are not allies with Turkey. Adding Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK and Turkey as allies, will find, neither Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK and their sources, nor, the Turkish government and its sources, to agree with.

You can add the European and North American countries plus Australia in the same side with Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK as well as FSA, but from there and on you need to check more, about who to add, and its relation with them Ron1978 (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Now it became even more POV than before, since in the same alliance a part have being named Democratic forces, with allies all the Sunni Islamic organizations, and in the same alliance you also find PKK and Turkey, which are not allies but opponents. I suggest the following:

In one column to add the NPF and its allies, something which is clear. In another to add the Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK-Iraqi Kurdistan. Keep on mind that those, are allies neither with the Islamic organizations nor the Turks. In another the FSA and its allies. FSA has some Islamic allies. In another the US-led coalition. If you prefer to add the coalition in the same side with Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK-Iraqi Kurdistan, then it is NPOV only if it contains the countries that are allies with and not opponents. In another any Islamic groups that are not allies with the FSA. In another Isis.

Keep on mind, that the main combatants are the NPF, the Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK-Iraqi Kurdistan, the FSA, the Islamic groups and Isis. Those are the ones that is NPOV to have the infobox based on them. Ron1978 (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I count 6 columns in that suggestion. That is too many. Forget that Turkey and Kurds in Turkey are fighting. In the context of the SYRIAN CIVIL WAR Turkey is in the NATO/EU American led group. That group is fighting against ISIL and (politically) Assad. Most of the NATO/EU support has been coordinated with the Kurds. So we have it right, within the context of a complex situation. Legacypac (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Turkey has openly admitted to intentionally shelling the YPG in Syria, acc. to the BBC. You're making it seem like Turkey is only fighting the PKK in Turkey, when in fact they are attacking U.S. allied Kurds in Syria. DylanLacey (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I am just suggesting the 6 columns based on what is going on. If anyone else agree on that, you can tell it here and then we can proceed. From there and onwards, anyone can add anything that he/she wants, with the appropriate sources. DylanLacey you are right that Turkey has shelled the YPG and that BBC said it. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34645462 I haven't disagreed with that. I have just said that Turkey is at war with PKK, I haven't denied anything else. Both you and everyone else, are welcome to add any sources claiming anything, in the case Ron1978 (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The template lists them PYD & Turkey as allies, but in fact Turkish Army have targeted PYD positions in Syria. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-hits-pyd-twice-for-crossing-euphrates-pm.aspx?pageID=238&nID=90385&NewsCatID=352 Kavas But historically and as in Iraq, Peshmerga is an ally of Turkey. (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

A fifth column should be formed to exclude the CJTF–OIR from the Rojava in the Main belligerents table, and to exlude world leaders from being listed under Rojava in the Commanders and leaders table. -Dominator1453 (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Including Turkey and the Kurds in the same column is the height of absurdity; however, adding a fifth column is not the answer as the infobox is complicated enough as it is. DylanLacey (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Turkey is fighting the Kurds in Iraq, not in Syria, so no, it isn't that absurd. They're good at playing divide and conquer with the Kurds and Arabs. The Kurds are not an unified group in any way, they have many internal conflicts. FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you unaware of the fact that Turkey has bombed the Syrian Kurds multiple times? This very discussion contains sources outlining this. DylanLacey (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Nusra (and other Salafist non-ISIS groups) has attacked FSA multiple times. They're in the same column. Also, Turkey did let Peshmerga through the border to enter the fighting in Kobane. So it's not clear cut at all. Furthermore, Turkey is cosy with the Kurdish government in North Iraq, which looks the other way when they bomb PKK fighters there. FunkMonk (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a neverending story with calling out the alliances, they will have shifted before we even have a chance of sorting it out. Especially with all these supposedly militant groups that fight for... Well basically what they believe to be the right cause at the time. Basically its a fight between them all and ISIS, Russia and US lead sides seem to be most dominant. I would almost want to say: make 4 columns, 1=US, 2=ISIS, 3=Russia/Syrian government, 4=Othergroups. Who fights who like I said, it changing by the day. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Russian Lisiting

Why is Russia listed on two sides of the war ?--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Article is locked, editor kiked out, false ref used. Asking ver link to VER in related art cause blocking of some IPs and threat to block me. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 07:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

German minister accuses Qatar

German minister accuses Qatar of funding Islamic State fighters http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-germany-qatar-idUSKBN0GK1I720140820 87.252.229.3 (talk)

But how Germany wil force ME-countries to pay bill for refuges in Germany? Germany is stil under ocupation but saying who ocupy her will be anti semitic intrests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Tourism

"Tourism in Syria has been severely affected by the conflict. In 2013, revenue of tourism industry was 94% lower than pre-conflict figures. Around 289 tourist sites have been damaged in conflict.[114]"

This seems like a fairly callous way to finish up the top-of-page summery, and a little pointless considering that there's a link to the "Tourism in Syria" page further down under "Impact." I'd remove it myself, if not for the page lock. Thanks. 2601:43:1:FEFF:15C3:2733:FBB3:D813 (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The remaining 6% 'tourism' could be a statistical calculation of journalists and others entering the region - or entering the nation's borders for reasons other than merely vacation or looking around. Should that even be CALLED 'tourism'? Tourism is defined as "travel for pleasure." I would like to see a serious paragraph on agricultural failure because of the higher heat, attributed to climate disruption. MaynardClark (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The higher C02 concentration mean higher agricultural yield in arid condition. In another words for the same amount of diffused water when CO2 concentration grow - yield grow. What/why do you read/bring/quote/think temperature in this climatic zone directly inhibit plants growth, or depress yield? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you count refuges? Then 11 million 'tourist' may enjoy visiting Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe they are counting the jihadists flocking to the Caliphate ? Death tourism is a thing I believe in The Netherlands, and appears to be catching on in Syria in another context. Legacypac (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a civil war

The term "civil war" does not seem to be appropriate anymore, given the very high number of foreign belligerents and their impact on the course of the war: Western coalition, Russia, Iran, Hezbolah, Kurds from Turkey, Afghans, foreign jihadists etc. Furthermore, the term "Syrian civil war" is very seldom used in the media. I suggest we rename this to "Syrian war". Lerichard (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Agh, could we have this in "Topical archives"? It gets brought up every other week. No, every civil war in history has had foreign involvement, the main players in this war are all Syrian. The various sub-conflicts have their own articles. This article is about the war between Syrian factions, and their foreign backers are of course listed. Just like in Spanish civil war, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I'm sure not every civil war :P, but obviously most. For instance, Europe was involved in the American Civil War. The Syrian Civil War is not Korea or Vietnam in terms of Civil Wars with foreign involvement. If that changes, we'll note it, but it hasn't. --Monochrome_Monitor 13:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't think of any with no amount of foreign involvement off hand, but yeah, the point remains. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, title should reflect common usage. News articles report war in Syria three times more without word 'civil'. example is here It may have been only a civil war, but is no longer. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"only" a civil war is inaccurate. It is a really ugly civil war. Legacypac (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way but thought it'd be worth noting that Obama called it the "Syrian war" in his speech last night. -KaJunl (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thought some more, I do have an opinion - think we should leave it as Syrian Civil War for now, and it will become obvious we time if we should change the name (i.e. all media will stop calling it civil war). I do predict that "civil" may drop off the name eventually, but I don't think we're at that point yet. -KaJunl (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

More thoughts - went on Google news and searched "syrian civil war" and "syrian war" and "syrian war" is yielding more results. No idea what exactly it searches, but I think Google news is geared towards recent usage. Also comes up with a lot of recent articles showing just "Syrian war." Doesn't mean we should change this yet, but worth considering. -KaJunl (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Glad you are taking a considered approach. A search for Syrian War will return all results for both Syrian War and Syrian Civil War so it will always get more hits. Syrian War is a short form of Syrian Civil War, but that does not stop it from being a Civil war. The other problem with Syrian war is there have been wars in Syria since the dawn of time, so we would need to add dates to the name. This is the first Civil war in the country/historic region though (surprisingly). Legacypac (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

here are accurate searches, which show non civil order of magnitude higher than civil: general search trends 5 vs 1 in favor of non civil, civil 1.4M results and non-civil 22.4M results So 5 times as many in searches, and 15 times as manu in results, I think it is clear! 178.148.10.191 (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac thanks, quick question though - you're saying searches with quotes for "syrian war" will bring up "syrian civil war"? that's not clear from the results i'm getting but maybe you just mean the overall count number does include or something? or perhaps it wasn't clear that i was including quotations marks. for what the poster right above me did (no username) i see what you mean, but i was just searching the exact phrase "syrian war" in the news results. it does seem that usage of "syrian war" is spiking but that's just based on what i'm seeing in the news, nothing too scientific (other than what i mentioned above) -KaJunl (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Change to 'civil war' to WW3 . It is not the truth is first *casualty* of war as commonly quoted. I aee war is direct result of lie. This seems to be seemingly independent of human action. Is like general property of universe , as the water flowing down, to go to equilibrium . Lie is excited state , like market bubble have to burst, sooner the better. The amount of lie on 'by deception' side grow exponentially since old lies need to be cover up by magnitude of new lies. That why lie may help on short run but never last permanently. All history teach liars lose all wars. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm largely not bothered with it being called either Syrian War or Syrian Civil War, they bth currenty hit the mark. There however is a point to be made for it. I've also already came acros wordings like "The second Cold War" Especially since Russia's intervention and US's reaction. some mention it the precursor for the third world war, seeing as how many bombings in France have happened, and in africa and.. where was it? I think we can safely say the war has since long reached far beyond the borders of Syria as a country. But the main factions are still Syrian. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

ISI and al-Nusra

The following line is in the article: "In April 2013, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq released an audio statement announcing that al-Nusra Front is its branch in Syria." Should we still include this? I feel like it's more confusing than anything, given how things have evolved. ISI/al Quaeda in Iraq has morphed into ISIL and is generally separate from the al-Nusra Front (right?) -KaJunl (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It is important for historical purposes to be mentioned somewhere at least. Nusra is just ISIL light. And not even by much. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. Maybe could be reworded though? I'll let others weigh in. To me, it just sounded more like "recent news" even though it wasn't recent, and it kind of muddied my understanding. Just a viewpoint from not-an-expert reading through the article the first time. -KaJunl (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Do we know what and how the allegiances are between these at this time? I was also under the impression Al-Nusra was allied with ISIL but because there's so many factions fighting for the same thing, just slightly different its difficult to keep differentiating. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes they cooperate, sometimes they fight to the death. Legacypac (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

They were close allies (Nusra is just the Syrian branch of al Qaeda in Iraq, which is now ISIL) until Baghdadi demanded Nusra pledged allegiance to him. Ideologically, they're the same, in spite of what al Jazeera wants you to believe. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Oil accusations/strategies by parties need a separate section in the article

Oil is mentioned a lot, and there are a lot of accusations now between warring parties about who is trading oil with whom. There are discussions on this talk page about news articles and opinion pieces accusing countries of trading oil with ISIS. Especially coming from states, these accusations are notable enough for a separate section (though they should be represented neutrally: who made the accusation against whom, where were oil tankers destroyed when, how long has ISIS been transporting oil before attacks on oil tankers and wells began, etc). The accusations themselves, coming from states, are part of a geopolitical strategy for the war in Syria - whether they are true or not. Also, restriction of oil trade is now seen as a key part in the strategy to fight ISIL. What do others think? --BurritoBazooka (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you add also too what say leaders/spokespersons/webs/tweets of each terrorists group? Or they supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

moderate Syrian rebels

first use - wikilink

change

On 11 September 2014 the US Congress expressed support to give President Obama the $500 million he wanted to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels.

to

On 11 September 2014 the US Congress expressed support to give President Obama the $500 million he wanted to arm and train [moderate Syrian rebels].

99.90.196.227 (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done - there is no article for the moderates only, so I linked to Syrian opposition which includes moderates. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)  Not done somebody else can redlink if they think that is acceptable. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

re: 'there is no article for the moderates only' so left it red. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

linking to some other not indicating what it is,is wrong. You can't link [Moon walking] to [moon walking (dance)] because one is only a film the other live performance witnessed by thousands. Numerous media feed moderate Syrian rebels. If you do not want intentionally mislead the audience - left it red linked. Somebody will quickly create moderate Syrian rebels.

the article you linked to moderate Syrian rebels have only two occurrences of word moderate*

• Moderate Islamic preacher ... but soon resigned
• moderate Islamists could form

none of those sentences are related to [moderate rebels].

the antisemantic or undescribed therm [moderate rebel] problem 2189 wykip articles. All apparently with Syria context. This is additional reason to left moderate Syrian rebels link red for now.

Please sign your comments. I undid the revision, somebody else can redlink. I don't personally redlink. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

But if you can link to other articles do you think this will be more appropriate >> moderate Syrian rebels. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah There you can have blue link and good info.

invalid source

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IschF-ihjS0

please remove from the article.. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

also, sentence ... which would have threatened the Syrian government with targeted sanctions if it continued military actions against protestors. misquotes its source. specifically, 'military intervention' in source refers to outside intervention, not Syria's military. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

copyedit note

I am going through the section labelled Assad government. I just wanted to note that I put clarification needed at the end of the first paragraph even though I am fairly sure I understand it because that is an AWFUL sentence that really cries out to be reworded by someone with a better grasp of the details. Break it into two sentences if necessary, don't be shy. Something like "elections were actually referendums with only one presidential candidate. Other political offices generally also only had one candidate on the ballot." Assuming that's true of course, and that's a little more than a copy edit change if I am misunderstanding the original. So. Someone please fix.

Also, the section is more about how the Assad governmment came to power than just the Assad government if you ask me, but I am in here because it's on a list of articles that need hels with spelling and grammar so I merely suggest the change. I am going to get through the end of this section and consider my good deed for the day is done. The problem with copyedits on these one-revert articles is you get yelled at ;) Elinruby (talk) 02:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The last sentence in the second paragraph may well be true -- in fact I believe it is -- but the is wikipedia and we need a little more than what Elinruby thinks she maybe might have heard. Which analysts, whose? And why is it surprising that reformists were complaining? Is the missing link here that Assad fils was allegedly a reformer? That thing about legacy of stagnation has got to go too. You don't get a legacy in ten or fifteen years. I'm actually not sure what to call it and I already had three template on the sentence, but please be more specific, ie terrible economy would be better for example; what's there could just as well mean moral turpor or just about anything actually. Also, I failed to comment on a clarification needed in the first paragraph--I don't think you can assume that english-speaking readers know what you mean by traditional leaders here. Elinruby (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit request 6/12/2015

In the section "Course of events", sub-section "Escalation (November 2011 – March 2012)", remove the fourth paragraph which begins "On January 17, 2012 ...". Replace with "An internet survey of more than 1,000 people across 18 countries in the Middle East and North Africa in December 2011 found that 81% thought that Bashar al-Assad should resign. 55% of the Syrians polled did not think their president should resign, but it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions from this because only 98 Syrians were included in the poll." The source for this is the following BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17155349 Many thanks. Minisilly (talk)

 Needs discussion How about "On January 17, 2012 the UK's Guardian reported on a YouGov Siraj poll on Syria commissioned by The Doha Debates funded by the Qatar Foundation, which found that 55% of Syrians supported President Bashar al-Assad. However, Syrians were only a small subset of the larger group polled." Seems more neutral? I agree with you that the original paragraph is biased especially given the details you provided. Maybe this is worth taking out altogether? Quoting a poll, only then to say that the poll is not credible, kind of takes away any noteworthiness. It seems like it was included because the Guardian reported on it, and possibly to try to give a picture of public perception of the government at that time (even if only based on a very small sample). Or alternatively, could have just been that a pro-gov person edited it in and no one ever checked it or edited it out. -KaJunl (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy for you to remove the paragraph altogether. The main thing is not to leave it in its present form as it's misleading. Many thanks. Minisilly (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I see that this hasn't been actioned yet. I'm changing the answered status back to "no". Minisilly (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Semi-done I removed the paragraph for now, since it was definitely biased. I would like others' input about whether it's worth re-adding with different phrasing though/whether it contributes anything to the article by being included. -KaJunl (talk) 18:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)