Wikipedia

Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 40

< Talk:Syrian civil war
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Ferakp in topic Rojava's support
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41Archive 42→Archive 45

War was planned by USA a while ago

Latest comment: 8 years ago25 comments5 people in discussion

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? [1] 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

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:

--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)
Wow! We have a psychic here! They MUST be right :)178.148.10.191 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC) If you say so... I'd just call it common sence. Haven't been watching events in and around those neighbourhoods? When has it been "quiet"???
You probably not even then, but not us. What you pushing is original research in reverse. We need WP:OM to flag this. I'm not really sure what you're about? I'm pushing nothing. If anything, I was against this being mentioned at all as its UNPROVEN.
more, it is grand Israel plan =to defeat ISIS [] is to win the battle and lose the war.178.148.10.191 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC) I was being cynical. and stop twisting my words around!
Bottomline for me, and I'll try to be as clear as I possibly can.... The statement about the war being planned by USA should NOT be inserted into the article as there's NO reliable sourceS (as in more than 1) backing this claim up. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 07:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Casualty figures.

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think the current casualty figures need updating - Daesh especially has almost certainly lost far more than around 8k fighters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.79.15.18 (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

well oiled lie

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

While several times oil fields are mentioned there is no info where the oil go. Us saying they knew about it for years but did not bombed pipelines on wells (the oil truck convoys) because this will release carbon dioxide to atmosphere. The free also media mention US didn’t bomb the terrorist convoy because it they bombs may mutilate someone. US is on record saying they bombed it on 15 but saying this after Ru bombed it on 18 Nov. By this lie is confirmed by Us and RU sides fact that oil tankers roll the deash stolen oil somewhere. This info is missing. So it is lie by omission[2][3]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMermbclRXs look around 2:22 . What do you see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 04:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't need to watch it to tell you that's not an RS, nor is this a forum for general discussion.12.11.127.253 (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Russia

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Aren't they on the government's side and not part of the coalition. Tony Abigail (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The infobox says they are helping the Kurds, which should be carefully sourced before such a change as that is not why anyone thinks Russia is in Syria. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The Russian position is unclear and/or evolving. Initially it looked as though they were happy to let the coalition fight ISIS, while they attacked the other Syrian rebels (many of which are supported by the coalition). However, having a passenger plane bombed out of the sky by ISIS, after it left Cairo airport, and having a military jet shot down by Turkey (while crossing into Turkey to attack a Turkish ally) may have started to convince them that this approach is not in their best interest. StuRat (talk) 08:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:German involvement in the Syrian Civil War

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Category:German involvement in the Syrian Civil War, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. GreyShark (dibra) 17:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Under the leaders section it has Stephan Harper. This should be updated to Justin Trudeau. Can't edit because the page is locked — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.251.145.18 (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

  Not done - Stephen Harper took part in the war effort; Justin Trudeau in fact withdrew from involvement.GreyShark (dibra) 17:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Article needs split/downsizing

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm looking at the article right now, and I see a good 20 subsections for just the "Course of Events" section. Given the number of involved parties, as well as vastly differing objectives of various actors, I would suggest the partitioning of this article into several smaller ones documenting individual phases of the conflict (similarly to the group of articles on the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which contains separate articles for the initial unrest (Euromaidan), pro-Russian protest, seizure of Crimea, and armed intervention, while designating yet another batch of articles to international reactions and responses). As it stands right now, this article is somewhat taxing to read, which contravenes Wikipedia's basic goals of information accessibility. The infobox itself should demonstrate the necessity of partitioning this article, due to there being an inordinate amount of involved parties listed as belligerents. At the very least, the important people should be kept, but I believe that listing (as an example) the emir, deputy, military chief, spokesperson, and eastern emir of the Nusra Front is a little excessive for an article on the Syrian Civil War as a whole. Having an inbobox listing belligerents and an entire 10-part section on the belligerents in an article intended to cover the overarching Syrian Civil War also seems a little excessive; perhaps a separate article entitled "international involvement in the Syrian Civil War" or similar phrasing should be created for this particular type of information. In addition, I do not feel that the section on "advanced weaponry and tactics" belongs in this particular article; it may merit its own, separate article documenting "weapons used in the Syrian Civil War" or something along those lines. I would appreciate any thoughts/comments/suggestions on any of the above. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The Advanced weaponry and tactics section should definitely be removed. It seems like most of it is about violations of international law or human rights issues rather than actual analysis of the overall military strength and equipment of each side. The belligerents section definitely be trimmed or removed. Most war articles don't even have such a section.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Inter-rebel conflict

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I suggest creating an article for the failed January 2014 rebel assault on Raqqa, as some sort of "second battle" over the control of that city. LlegóelBigotee (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Uyghur

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

please change ((Uyghur)) to ((Uyghurs|Uyghur))

  Done Cannolis (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Syria 2015/6 - Gabbard Bill (HR 4108) to end USA support to groups aiming to 'destabilize' Syria and to overthrow its internationally recognized government

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

HR4108, the Gabbard Bill, should also be included in the relevant Wiki articles about Syrian Civil War, and in the list of U.S. Congressional opposition to war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:U.S._Congressional_opposition_to_war

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4108 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr4108 http://gabbard.house.gov/index.php/press-releases/520-reps-tulsi-gabbard-austin-scott-introduce-legislation-to-end-illegal-u-s-war-to-overthrow-syrian-government-of-assad http://syrianamericanforum.org/index.php/saf-in-action/117-call-to-support-h-r-4108

"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds available to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, or any other agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities, or to the National Security Council or its staff may not be obligated or expended to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, stipends, construction of training and associated facilities, and sustainment, to any element of the Syrian opposition or to any other Syrian group or individual seeking to overthrow the government of the Syrian Arab Republic, unless, after the date of the enactment of this Act, funds are specifically authorized to be appropriated and appropriated by law for such purpose."

HR4108 has two components:

(a) to stop all support by the USA government to groups aiming to 'destabilize' Syria and to overthrow its internationally recognized government. (b) If, however, the USA government wants to overthrow the internationally recognized government of Syria, a law (= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Clause) for such purpose must be enacted by Congress.

The USA government has been involved in the 'destabilizing' of Syria since "early 2012" http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/25/world/middleeast/arms-airlift-to-syrian-rebels-expands-with-cia-aid.html , which was formulated as a policy goal back in 2001: 1:47 min in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSL3JqorkdU "This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” ... So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.”" http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirk ec (talk • contribs) 04:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

GlobalResearch is not a reliable source. Jewnited (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

But is it not well known that a major US policy in the Middle-East to destabilize and overthrow the (internationally recognized)government of Syria? To this end, are not the US Government funding, supporting and building the 'good' terror groups? And what about the statement: "we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran” - was not that from a reliable source?

Syrian Civil War Map

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am just curious who makes these maps? I have seen some maps and all of them show the regime to control the West and South parts of Syria but in this map, ISIS has went deep on two places to regime-held areas. Can we confirm these attacks please? Jewnited (talk) 11:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Editors build them using news reports and very specific rules. They track who controls/besieges each village. A claim by group X to have taken a place is not enough, they require an outside source to confirm or a side to say they lost the place. I believe that these maps are among the most accurate in the world as a result. The pockets of control are places where groups pledged to ISIL that control places. Legacypac (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Should Jordan be included in the infobox?

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

We have already agreed on the talk page that only countries currently providing lethal support should be included in the infobox. This is why countries providing non-lethal support to various sides (China, Netherlands, Germany) are not included. The current source states that rebels were trained by U.S. forces on Jordanian territory. In my opinion, this is insufficient to warrant inclusion in the infobox. A source was then also added stating that Jordanian participation in CJTF-OIR was evidence of lethal support to the Syrian opposition. Jordan's participation in CJTF-OIR is already noted elsewhere in the infobox, so I do not believe this alone warrants inclusion as a lethal supporter of the Syrian opposition. Although it is very clear that Jordan does support the Syrian opposition, the government's official policy on the conflict is neutrality.[1][2][3] This is unlike the position of the other nations stated in this infobox to be providing lethal support to the Syrian opposition. In addition, Jordan has also cooperated with Russia during the Russian military intervention in Syria, and did not sign the statement condemning Russia for its actions in Syria.[4] Whilst Jordan has closely cooperated with the Syrian opposition and permitted the training of the opposition on their soil, there is very little to suggest they are a substantial provider of lethal support to the Syrian opposition in the same way as the other countries listed. Jordan's position on the crisis seems to be more similar to that of Egypt, the UAE and Israel than to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. --109.157.228.211 (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

  • No - Jordan is part of the anti-ISIL coalition, but it is not providing an active support to the rebels. Humanitarian efforts is certainly not a support, while US training of rebels on Jordanian soil is a bit tricky issue, but to my opinion not enough. Maybe if the scale is big enough (of training), we should reconsider).GreyShark (dibra) 11:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Jordan should show in the right column, not the second from the left. Legacypac (talk) 11:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/07/jordan-syria-islamic-state-iraq-war-rebels-neutral.html
  2. ^ http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2013/08/15/Jordan-gets-daring-on-Syria.html
  3. ^ http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/govt-reiterates-neutral-position%E2%80%99-over-syrian-crisis?
  4. ^ http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/jordan-russia-cooperate-syria-military-action-151024074311276.html

Splitting the article

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

From looking over the article, it appears that the tag regarding excessive length is highly appropriate. Given the multifaceted nature of this conflict, I would propose that the general moniker "Syrian Civil War" cannot adequately be used to describe the entire conflict currently happening. For this reason, I propose the following changes:

1. Splitting the subject of the article along the line of the "course of events" section (perhaps separate articles on a. the initial pro-democracy movement and subsequent repression, b. the escalation of conflict and increasing confrontation between government forces and militants, c. degeneration into a full-blown war, d. rise of IS in Syria, e. counteroffensive against IS by international coalition)

2. The infobox needs to be drastically reduced in size. For the sake of readability and accessibility of information, we should not have a "Commanders and Leaders" section that has 10 entries for the Syrian army, 7 for the FSA, 5 for the Nusra Front, and 8 for ISIL. We should also consider which groups have made a significant enough impact on the course of the conflict to be mentioned in an introductory infobox which is placed at the header of an article.

3. We should try to balance the sections which have additional links to dedicated articles. At the moment, a lot of those sections are rendering their links superfluous by serving as mini-articles in and of themselves. As an example, the section on "Foreign Involvement", while containing two distinct links to dedicated articles, nevertheless has 730 words altogether, which seems a little excessive.

Any additions to the above would be appreciated; I will proceed to implement these edits over the coming few weeks. Please leave a message on my talk page if you would like to help. Helmut von Moltke (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Most of the sections already have links to more detailed main article elsewhere on WP. I would therefore think that a lot of trimming is possible. I consult this article regularly and it's a superb example of what we can achieve on here but it is unmanageably long. Tigerboy1966  07:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Why not include the war map the rest of Daesh territories in neighboring countries? 2804:14C:5BB6:44C:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Because this is an article about the war in Syria. Gazkthul (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
But if the war in Syria is not limited to Syria, what then? (EnochBethany (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2016 (UTC))
Daesh inserted itself into an existing civil war in Syria. Daesh was fighting an insurgency in Iraq already. It has since joined the civil war in Libya and insurgents in other areas have joined Deash. Oh and of course they are undertaking terrorist acts in other places. Legacypac (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Syrian Civil War infobox

Latest comment: 8 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

The talk page for the template redirects here.

The template has nearly 100 references and growing daily, meaning every article that uses the template is immediately a very large ref'd article. More so the template is attempting to justify causality figures using refs alone with no prose explanation - this is a problem since causality figures are always contested and need explanation showing multiple POVs, who said it and when. Overall it's not a good setup.

Suggest creating a new article called Syrian Civil War casualties and reducing to a single ref in the template linking to the relevant section of that article where there is unlimited space to explain and add as many refs as needed. Create charts and graphs showing changes over time etc.. -- GreenC 15:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

This gargantuan monstrosity is probably largest conflict infobox in wikipedia by a huge margin. But cutting it down while fighting continues would have only temporary effect, as many people will quickly start adding more and more details again.--Staberinde (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
SCW is more complex, in terms of players, then even WWII. It is what it is. The size of the infobox is the smallest problem in the SCW, look at the people dying, destroyed property and economy etc. Legacypac (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
This is not a discussion of the Syrian Civil War but a discussion of reducing the size of the infobox. Even though you are correct on the core issue of the War having a high degree of complexity, the infobox is still too big, and efforts should be made to reduce its size. Nuke (talk) 05:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Staberinde: - I agree it's too big for what it is trying to do. The problem is solvable by moving all the causality refs into the article Syrian Civil War casualties and then linking to that article from the infobox (as a Note). That would be a start to reducing the size of the infobox, and more accurately accounting for casualties. -- GreenC 15:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Support - agree with Green C on this idea as well. The figures are often disputed, which requires a number of references to keep it checked so to speak. A separate article would allow a great depth of analysis of the figures presented and disputed between different parties. In my opinion a separate casualty article is needed for any ongoing conflict. The main article can have somewhat a rounded figure, i.e. xxxxx+ killed and so on. Hammer5000 (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Commander titles should be also removed, and less important commanders cut until there are no more than 10 in any column. Infobox should be about quick summary, not about detailed explanation. Some further collapsing of combatants may be also worth considering.--Staberinde (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe a separate infobox/table with notable commanders/leaders etc. Hammer5000 (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Is This A Joke? Turkey is part of the coalition "against ISIS", not "supporting PKK and PYD"

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Well, first I should put forth the fact that Turkey is fighting with PKK for 30 years(Al Jazeera, BBC World). Second, I should also put forth the fact that Turkey doesn't want PYD on its borders(Reuters, BBC News) and in order to co-operate, Turkey agreed with USA on that PYD won't be able to have ground west of Euphrates(WSJ, HurriyetDaily). Turkey stroke YPG three times for attempting to cross the river (BBC, BBC2, UPI, WSJ) and also hit YPG with tanks on borderline once because they helped PKK with weapon supplies (Guardian).

So it is really like an absolute joke to put Turkey side-to-side with PKK and PYD, which are listed as the "black-list of terrorist organizations" by Turkey, alongside DAESH(Al Jazeera Turk). Berkaysnklf (talk), 13 December 2015, 12:15 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the talk page before making new sections.[4] FunkMonk (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
that contradiction would sound like joke only IF we asume "terrorist" is bad in Turkey. Acordig to WP:policy we schold not use own brains but only folow what respect able sources feed. There is a lot of treazons in Iranian or Russian press eg SARIN TREASON. But we can not add it here it is not US media feed. Not truth but verifability. Anyway this is not a joke becouse was not say as joke by major comedian. You doing original research -thats why the facts do not agree for you 70.209.78.211 (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Just who has been promoting ISIS / IS / Obamaese "ISIL" making coalition, collaborating -- how, how much, to what extent, is a big question I really wish I knew the answer to. Is it possible that the Obama Administration has created and promoted the "Islamic State"? Has the administration promoted ISIL because it set the goal of kicking out Assad above the means? Have the authorities been putting out a lot of disinformation??? (EnochBethany (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC))
Yes, Anon, you are correct; here on Wikipedia, we must assume our sources are true, even when we know they are wrong, and I can rattle off a laundry list of complaints about the NY Times et al. While I do not personally agree with the policy, I also agree with its current outcome, and Turkish participation in CJRF-OIR is both official and well-documented. Nuke (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
On the statement regarding the current Turkish-PKK conflict, Erdogan made a statement to the Turkish consul generals and listed DAESH, PKK, PYD and Al Qaeda as terrorist organizations which Turkey will never stand side-to-side. Do you guys still think that Turkey supports PYD, even after Turkey's attack on YPG three times for trying to siege Jerablus and this statement?

Statement at Bruxelles
Statement to Consul Generals
Statement about opposing YPG's further advance

Berkaysnklf (talk), 13:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

That's what the dividing lines are for. FSA and Nusra (and others) have also fought, but they are in the same column. Remember, Turkey has let Kurdish fighters past the Turkish border into Syria on some occasions. It's not as black and white as you claim. FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Infobox: Turkey supporting YPG?

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Turkey is part of the US-led coalition, however it does not actively support Kurd fighters, as Edogan has repetedly called YPG and PYD as terrorists and has criticized the West for backing Syrian Kurds.[5][6] --Z 10:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 13:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Is the title correct, "Civil War"?

Latest comment: 8 years ago16 comments9 people in discussion

The explanation is out there that this is not primarily a Civil War but a struggle taking place in & around Syria based on foreign interests, with foreign mercenaries fighting, and geopolitical goals of other nations primary -- chiefly outsiders meddling in Syria. What would be an objective, substitute title? I am not sure what is the procedure for changing the title of an article. How about "The Early 21st Century War in Syria"? (EnochBethany (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC))

Wikipedia generally uses most common name of conflict as a title. Also most civil wars in recent history had lots of foreign meddling.--Staberinde (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you know what percent of the fighters on the ground are Syrians? What about the percent of fighters in the air??? What percent of the weapons are Syrian? Is this essentially a civil war between Syrians? Is this chiefly a war by outsiders? (EnochBethany (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC))
The lead of our article today defines the topic of the article as: “… an ongoing multisided armed conflict with international interventions taking place in Syria” while referring to this October2015 Reuters article which defines the situation in Syria as "Syria war", saying: ‘Iran troops to join Syria war (…)’. While the conflict at some stage quite likely was best typified as 'civil war', presently the label 'war' is perhaps better fitting. I imagine – though I haven't been throroughly doing research on it, yet – that quite many, perhaps most, commentators and news articles nowadays refer to it as 'the war in Syria', realising (as EnochBethany argues) that many, perhaps most, of the fighters (and 'interests') in this war are by now no longer Syrian. 'Syrian 21st century war' could then be a concise and correct title for our article. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Headline writers will compress war names. Clearly there is a war in Syria. We use the most common precise title - and your suggestion is neither. Legacypac (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Could we have this topic as part of the topical archives, so we don't have to waste our time? It comes up every other week. Or is the list of move requests of the same function? FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't "argues" the issue, one way or the other; but I am interested in it. And I wonder if there is any proof that the most common name for this war is the "Syrian Civil War" instead of just the "War in Syria," or the "Syrian War," a shorter name BTW. And which is a more important principle, "common name" or "question-begging name"? IMHO This issue is something that should not be swept under the rug. I don't claim to know how much of a civil war vs how much of a battle ground for outside nations this war is. But I am sure that the topic is very relevant to the article and important, AEB your observation that it continually comes up. As more information comes to light, I would like to read it -- at least on the talk page. Peace -- to use an ironic closing. (EnochBethany (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC))
@FunkMonk: The move requests should be an indication but if you want to be more clear we could make a new page called Talk:Syrian Civil War/FAQ that links above. Note: This was done with Chelsea Manning (Talk:Chelsea Manning/FAQ) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

War is Syria is a topic that covers thousands of years of recorded history. As far as we know this is the first Civil WR in Syria. WWII was called the 'War in Europe' by contemporary newspapers because a newspaper does not need to distinguish - they are printing New(s) info even though there have been wars through recorded history in Europe. Legacypac (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I notice that EnochB considers this an "important" and "very relevant" issue/topic ( titling the article as 'war' or 'civil war'): I agree to that. Legacypac on 2+3 January did not address the issue raised here. If anyone does not have an opinion on an issue raised somewhere, he/she is kindly requested not to comment in such a section, lest he would be interested in disturbing/hindering a (serious) discussion of others. The same goes for FunkMonk, and Knowledgekid. Once again: please, have the politeness not to disturb legitimate discussions of others on some Talk page. Enoch: please don't use too much abbreviations ("BTW"?). --Corriebertus (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
My comment was clear and Corriebertus's comments about me are out of line. I'll AGF and assume Corriebertus just can't understand English very well. This topic gets addressed every week, see archives, and stop wasting time discussing stuff that has been discussed to death.Legacypac (talk) 14:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
LP suggests that the issue has been discussed before. So what? If someone is of the opinion that an issue has been discussed before and that a conclusion was reached based on arguments and that those arguments don’t yet seem to have changed, he should say so and refer to that older discussion. In that way, others can take their time to read over that old discussion, and verify for themselves whether all or most of those arguments are still ‘in force’. If for 18 days no one posts a new comment here, the discussion will automatically be closed. There’s no need nor justification nor logic yet to (hurriedly) close it now – unless you want to hush/stifle/forbid free discussions on Wikipedia. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
As I said, browse the archives and I'll also point you at the Requested Moves linked at the top of this talk page including the last one [7]. See the big box at the top that says "Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting." You should also not reverse discussion closures by uninvolved editors. [8] and [9]. Legacypac (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The term is civil war, because it's the usual name of the conflict. Nuke (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
As Nuke says. Wikipedia policy is to go with the common name, and that is civil war. EkoGraf (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree. This is a pretty straight-forward WP:V/WP:WEIGHT/WP:COMMONNAME issue. On this project, we do not extrapolate article titles (or content in general) by applying our own logic as to what we think of the subject matter--no matter how iron-clad we believe our reasoning and our interpretations of the facts to be. Rather, we only report/parallel the perspectives of WP:Reliable sources with regard to any given topic, and, to the greatest extent possible, keep ourselves and our personal perspectives out of the matter, including with regard to organizational schemes. It seems generally beyond dispute that sources overwhelmingly classify this conflict as a civil war--not withstanding the many regional and global interests intertwined with the horrific national tragedy. If someone wants to contest this assumption with an argument based on the balance of perspectives portrayed in the RS, that is one thing; I think it's probably a WP:SNOW argument to make that assertion, but at least the approach would be consistent with Wikipedia policy. However, maintaining that we should not use a given handle because "obviously, a civil war needs to...'A, B, C'" or because "logically, this isn't a civil war because 'X, Y, Z'" is a pretty obvious attempt to supplant WP:original research into the role meant to be played by legitimate sourcing. Snow let's rap 05:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Madaya fury and Fua kaffiye siege hunger

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Horrific images and stories of starving children have suddenly flooded the media as the reality of life in the town of Madaya in Syria, besieged by Syrian regime sources and Hezbollah, has surfaced. But what is perhaps more shocking than the images is how the deliberate targeting of the population of Madaya has been taking place since July 2015 without the international community noticing.

This is despite activists in Madaya desperately trying to direct global attention to the atrocities committed there by the Syrian regime and its ally Hezbollah. It is only when the situation in Madaya reached the level of mass starvation that the international media have paid attention. [10]

Madaya: Syrian regime supporters share food photos to taunt starving civilians trapped in town A hashtag meaning "solidarity with the siege of Madaya" was being used to support the Syrian army [11]


Over 3,000 Syrian Turkmen have fled to Turkey in recent days: official More than 3,000 members of Syria's Turkmen minority have fled across the Turkish border over the past three days to escape an offensive by pro-government forces in Syria's northwest, a Turkish official said Sunday.

"To date, over 3,100 Turkmen have entered Turkey where they are being supported by the authorities" in southern Hatay province, the official told AFP on condition of anonymity. Russian heavy shelling , Syria has launched a new influx of refugees — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.162.146.3 (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No Daesh in Bayırbucak Turkmen region bombed by Russians

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

No Daesh in Bayırbucak Turkmen region bombed by Russians, only civilians, Erdoğan says

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan on Wednesday dismissed Russia's claims and underscored that there are no Daesh terrorists in Bayırbucak region of Latakia Governorate in Syria and underscored that Turkmen civilians were there. "Some say there is Daesh in that area. There are no Daesh terrorists in Bayırbucak region of Latakia, Daesh is in Jarablous" Erdoğan said at a meeting of the Standing Committee for Economic and Commercial Cooperation of the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (COMCEC)Russian no daesh in Bayirbucak Turkmen bombing

Syria’s Bayir Bucak area has witnessed mass displacement of Turkmen who fled their homes Saturday following attacks by Syrian and Russian forces, local sources told News Agencys.Bombing Bayirbucak

More than 6,000 flee besieged Bayırbucak take shelter in Turkey Syrian Turkmen Refuguee — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.225.59 (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

No Daesh/ISIL most likely, but without a doubt there are plenty of various armed opposition groups. FSA may have their legit point to make, but al-nusra and the rest of army of conquest etc better pack their bags or they will get their share of metal, and rightly so they are getting it.Hammer5000 (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
By now, it should be pretty clear that the Russians don't care what brand of Islamist rebel they bomb. In any case, Erdogan isn't exactly a reliable source. FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Well they all pretty similar in their ways too, so they hardly need to be differentiated. A moderate rebel commits the same atrocities as the more extreme neighbour of his and they work together too, so whats the difference? Of course in fairness government forces not any better, but I am merely comparing rebel factions. As for Erdogan, he has as much blood on his hands as anyone else on the list, just because he is sitting comfortably in Turkey, one shouldnt ignore his ambitions and recent events specifically. Hammer5000 (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Moderate Head Choppers dont exist SaintAviator lets talk 06:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


Russia on the same side as Rojava

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The US has been supporting the YPG with airstrikes since late September 2014 and reportedly supplied weapons to them and their FSA allies, while also arming other anti-YPG FSA groups. The US also recently, along with France, another major coalition member, called on Turkey to stop shelling the YPG.

On the other hand Russia only started airstrikes a year later and supported Rojava even more later. Is it accurate to include Russia but not the coalition in the Rojava column? Editor abcdef (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is. I think that alliances might be shifting, and somebody might be trying to rewrite history to make it seem like the US was never allied with the Syrian Kurds... Esn (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Are there 4 or 5 main sides to this conflict?

Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

I notice that recently there have been some unilateral changes made to Template:Syrian Civil War infobox which haven't been discussed here. As a result, the Syrian Kurds & Syrian Democratic Forces and the US-led (CJTF-OIR) coalition have been separated. It now appears that the CJTF–OIR coalition (which includes most of the "Western world") has no allies on the ground in Syria at all, while the Syrian Kurds are supported only by Russia (which is obviously false, as the US has been supporting them throughout). Compounding the confusion is that the CJTF-OIR coalition itself has been conflicted about the Syrian Kurds almost from the beginning, with Turkey currently performing cross-border artillery strikes on them while the US and France are urging Turkey to stop. Perhaps the obvious question is: is the CJTF-OIR coalition actually a "side" to the conflict, or is it just an umbrella organization with no coherent ideology whose different members support different sides in the civil war? Esn (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

And also, how is Iraqi Kurdistan even a party to this conflict? (according to the infobox) Don't they keep to their side of the Iraqi-Syrian border? Esn (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, if the CJTR-OIR coalition is in the infobox, should the Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition (RSII, or 4+1) also be mentioned? Esn (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The change wasn't discussed, I guess it was made because someone didn't like seeing Turkey in the same column as the PYD. But feel free to revert it back, we can't have a new column for every single constellation of forces. FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Please revert it back to 4 sides. Having a 5th column is totally unnecessary.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Agree, 5th column is totally not necessary. I have made, what I think is an appropriate compromise edit, where I have removed Turkey from the column in which the SDF and US-led Coalition are (who have been confirmed to work together) and I added a note to Turkey in the rebel column (where they are listed as military support). The note beside Turkey states they are also part of the Coalition against ISIS but do not support the SDF (unlike the rest of the Coalition) and are engaged in a border conflict with them. EkoGraf (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
That seems good for now, at least until things change further (the alliances seem a bit unstable...). Also, good job whoever added Russia to the YPG-side column as well. Esn (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Russia appears to be supporting the YPG but only by accident. Russia is only interested in bombing opponants of the Regime, but in some cases the Kurds took ground as a result of Russian action in the air when Assad forces were not in position to do so. I think Russia and Assad see the Kurds as the lesser evil, perhaps even useful to fight ISIL until Assad can turn his guns on the Kurds and crush them too.
Iraqi Kurds sent ground troops and heavy weapons to Kobani (most prominently) via Turkey so that is why they are shown as a belligerent. Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I'm not sure that relations between the YPG/SDF and Assad & Russia are as simple as you make them out. As I said in another comment, I suspect that Russia and Assad are working to rebrand the YPG/SDF as the "moderate US-backed opposition" (note the 3-star flag in the photo in that article) to which that recent US/Russia-brokered ceasefire will apply to (rather than to the FSA/Al Nusra/Army of Conquest, which Russia and Assad will keep attacking as "Turkish-backed extremists"). Note that the SAA mostly stopped advancing north of Aleppo, and let the Kurds/SDF take most of the territories from the "greens". The question is whether the US & other Westerners will find this acceptable, and whether they will keep Turkey and Saudi Arabia from interfering in exchange for being given this neatly framed "way out" from this whole Syrian mess. If we suddenly see articles in the press that the "politically-moderate" parts of the "greens" are defecting to the Syrian Democratic Forces, well... Esn (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The government and Russians don't want to "crush" the YPG, and never really fought the Kurds. Remember, Syria hosted Ocalan until the Turks complained, and still see the Kurds as a weapon against Turkey. FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Very confused, please help! Concerning supposed Syrian Gov Allies

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi folks. So I sometimes view this article to get updated on things and I can swear I used to be able to read in the info box that among others Cuba and Angola were supplying weapons and expertise to the Syrian government, I think other nations too like Belarus. Now I know various sides and probably FSB/CIA/Whatevs operatives here have various missions and goals with removing that information. But this is not the primary question. The primary question is that even though I clearly remember seeing these flags in the info box just a few weeks ago, not even moving back to the start of January do I find them anymore.

So my question is two fold: Isn't it true that they were there? Why were they removed? Here are two articles from US press that suggest that Cuban officers are assisting the Government: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/14/cuban-military-forces-deployed-to-syria-to-operate-russian-tanks-say-sources.html http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/14/leopoldo-cintras-frias-cuban-military-chief-visits/

Second part: If this was indeed the case, and I remember finding out about it through the wiki here somewhere, how the hell have they not only been removed but removed from the history of the page?

Thank you PS; Please explain this to me I'm going crazy more over the second question than the first, though it would be prudent to add these flags and supporters back... 92.251.63.47 (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

In any case, it is so insignificant that it hardly warrants mention. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I'd say it's not insignificant. If anything its politically significant and shows international support. But I am still interested in the history here. How the hell can someone remove it from the history of the Wiki! Doesn't anyone remember seeing this? Am I allowed to add it back? How does this work? Is the window itself a separate wiki?92.251.63.47 (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for listing rebel groups above or below the line

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What's the criteria for listing rebel groups above or below the line that separates the "opposition" and al-Qaeda? For example Soldiers of the Levant is placed below the line and Alwiya al-Furqan above, despite that they are allies and share the same ideology. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe the criteria is inclusion in the Syrian National Coalition, but I'm not really certain myself other than the fact that the line indicates non-alliance or conflict with the others. I believe they can be listed both above and below the line, though, based on the support lists. Nuke (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Time to include Turkey in FSA column?

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Turkey became directly involved in fighting. It might be of lesser significance but still a fact: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/Default.aspx?pageID=238&nID=95143&NewsCatID=352 Isn't that right time to include Turkey in the infobox? --Emesik (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't mean support but direct involvement in fighting: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/02/18/turkey-says-syrian-kurds-behind-ankara-attack/80543852/ --Emesik (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 19:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

More Honesty Needed in the Reporting of Syria

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The media are misleading the public on Syria

“…Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. It can do so with popular support because many Americans — and many journalists — are content with the official story. In Syria, it is: “Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish, Saudi, and Kurdish friends to support peace!” This is appallingly distant from reality. It is also likely to prolong the war and condemn more Syrians to suffering and death.” Stephen Kinzer, Boston Globe, February 18, 2016

Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.236.30 (talk) 12:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not object to creating a section on media reporting in the SCW. However, you should understand the words of Stephen Kinzer will not change WP policy on sources. Please note that this is not a forum for discussion of the SCW, but a page to discuss improvements to the article and infobox. Nuke (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Iraq should be included as a belligerent

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Iraq has deployed state sanctioned Shia militia such as the Badr Organisation Military Wing, Kata'ib Hezbollah, Harakat Hezbollah al-Nujaba, Liwa Abu al-Fadhal al-Abbas to fight in Syria.

204.197.177.213 (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

This sounds OK, but some RS for your claim would strengthen its merit SaintAviator lets talk 01:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
There are many picture and video proofs of Iraqi Shia militias in Aleppo province.

2620:101:F000:700:74E7:437D:D706:5D6A (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

If I'm correct, this only means that those specific militias are participating. However, I believe it is reasonable to include Iraq as a supporting country, given it's been included previously IIRC. Nuke (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Rojava should be placed on the same side as the Syrian government

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

162.221.125.161 (talk) 01:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Nope, there are several anti-gov FSA groups in the SDF, plus the YPG and the pro-opposition Sutoro fought pro-gov forces in Hasakah last year. Just recently Sootoro clashed with YPG in Qamishli. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The Kurds are fighting for an autonomous, if not completely independent, state that the Syrian government has repeatedly refused to grant or recognize. So no, they're not on the same side, even if they have an uneasy coexistence in some areas. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes. They share the same enemies (ISIS, Turkey, FSA fractions) and some of the goals. The only difference is that Kurds are pursuing autonomy/independence and they are unlikely to operate outside Kurdish areas. Otherwise they cooperate quite well. The SDF is dominated by YPG and even though some minor member groups were fighting SAA, these events aren't too significant. The split between Assad and Kurdish forces, once ISIS is defeated, seems to be very likely but we aren't here to predict future. TL;DR: Yes, merge them.--Emesik (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. The Kurds have clashed with both Rebel factions and the Syrian government on a number of occasions. There was even an incident this year where a Pro-Assad militia ended up provoking a fight with the Kurds that left several dead and injured, including civilians. Plus, in recent offensives around Aleppo, the Kurds and the Syrian military wouldn't let each other cross their lines, and several checkpoints had to be set up in order to prevent fights from breaking out. The Kurds are fighting for themselves in the civil war. They have their own reasons to fight, and have their own goals, which sets them apart from other sides in this conflict. Anasaitis (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

With time, as the Turks keep pounding the Kurds while NATO ignores it, the Kurds will probably be forced into a more direct alliance with the government and the Russians, but not quite yet. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Why have the government in red and the extremists in green?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As the subject says. The government and the army are keeping Damascus stable and safe and yet they are red. Meanwhile the extremist Sunni rebels are green. What is this? Maybe the colors don't matter too much. But I have this suspicion that Wikipedia is trying put off the Syrian government as the bad guys even though they aren't. Oh and please don't try and say that they are. Most American news that reports on the matter is extremely propagandized. I'm a Syrian and I have family living in Syria. My father and mother currently live in the US, and all of us support President Bashar. It's a shame really. America helps the extremist rebels who will oppress women, Christians, atheists, homosexuals, etc, and yet they are the good guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18D:301:A090:C4F3:1833:C3FF:1B1D (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to Wikipedia's point of view, it's just a colour based on the status quo that in a civil war map, government forces are coloured red, mainstream rebels are coloured green, Salafist jihadists are coloured grey, and ethnic forces which are neutral between red and green are coloured yellow. This has also been used in Iraqi Civil War (2014–present) and Libyan Civil War (2014–present). Despite that the Iraqi and Libyan governments are usually seen as "good guys" by the general public, they're still red.
Once again, it's just a colour. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 08:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Russian involvement sentence in introduction

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Re "The Russian involvement has helped turn the tide against the Islamic State and in favour of the Syrian government.".

This sentence is a distortion of the facts. It is what Putin says to justify his involvement. Two of the three quoted sources appear to be directly parroting the Russian line; they are not sources worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, except perhaps in the later Russian involvement section, as part of the Russian POV. Reputable Western press consistently finds that the primary effect of Russian airstrikes has been against the weaker independent rebels, NOT against ISIS. For example, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/04/russian-bombs-trigger-mass-aleppo-exodus-syria-conference-told "The Russian defence ministry said ... While Moscow’s intervention has the declared aim of battling the Islamic State terror group, military observers claim at least 70% of airstrikes have targeted opposition groups fighting to oust Assad." ... "The Russian air attacks in the area around Aleppo have succeeded in clearing rebel strongholds that had defied two earlier regime pushes..."

The Syrian government's stated aim is to re-gain control of Aleppo, and seal the border with Turkey. These aims would nullify the rebels backed by Western powers, but would have little effect on ISIS. A look at BBC map of Russian air strikes confirms that the vast majority are on rebel-held areas both north and south of Damascus, not on ISIS to the east and north-east.

I think this sentence should be replaced with something like "Since September 2015, Russian air strikes have allowed the Syrian government to take the offensive on all fronts, especially against rebel factions in and around Aleppo.

I have made this change, and removed the two low-quality references. ("on all fronts" because it *is* true that the government is making headway against ISIS; it just isn't the primary consequence. "Aleppo", because that area has been the most significant advance, and is the heart of non-Islamic rebel opposition) ToolmakerSteve (talk) 03:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Russia supports the Syrian government

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The Russian military should put on the side of the Syrian government, not Rojava.

Russia is put on both sides because Russia supports both the Syrian Kurds and the Syrian government with airstrikes (against the FSA and ISIL).
- CentreLeftRight ✉ 21:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there evidence that Russia is directly supporting the Kurds? I've seen articles about Kurds advancing after Russian airstrikes, but the strikes themselves seemed mainly intended to cover Syrian government forces. The only direct comment I've seen says no: "Washington has seen no evidence that the YPG are cooperating with the Russians, U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said at a briefing this week." from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-kurds-idUSKCN0VQ1FR. In addition, even if Russia is sometimes assisting Kurds, it almost certainly would be a part of the Russian strategy to strengthen Assad (because Kurds are advancing both against ISIS and against FSA rebels). Bottom line: I agree that Russia only should be listed as pro-government. ToolmakerSteve (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
UPDATE: Russian General Dvornikov confirms aid to Kurd's. I still consider this tactical, but there is now some justification for including Russia in two places. I personally would still vote against doing so. https://www.rt.com/news/337023-russian-special-forces-syria/
“[The advisers] successfully performed the task of training government forces, Kurdish and other patriotic forces. The fact that our advisers played an active part in planning military action contributed to the progress,” Gen. Dvornikov said in the interview. ToolmakerSteve (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Strength of FSA

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Under the combatants section we have the FSA strength at 40 - 50,000. However the article is from 2013. Is it possible to get more up to date numbers? A large portion of these have joined al-Nusra or Islamic State. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.18.64 (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/free-syrian-army-decimated-desertions-151111064831800.html references http://studies.aljazeera.net/en/reports/2015/10/2015101383740214464.html, which says > 30,000 in Southern Front (the non-Islamic factions south of Damascus). Northern areas much harder to measure. Where Syrian Democratic Forces dominate, remaining FSA are said to be working with them; if you still count those as FSA, plus the groups around Aleppo, the 40 - 50 K estimate may not be that far off (surprisingly). ToolmakerSteve (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Russian casualties in Syria

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

[ Claim ]

There have only been 6 Russian casualties in the Syrian Civil War. Sources: Source 1 Source 2 -- 6 (soldiers contractors).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.91.194.173 (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC) 80.91.194.173 (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

6+2http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2961899=8 12 4 2016

The article lists Russian casualties from the entirety of the war, not just recent deaths.
- CentreLeftRight ✉ 04:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

as usual - the United States brazenly lying all over the world)))

total losses to date only 8 (all kinds of troops). Bole of you deny as all the ref article on casualties among the volunteers outside the army. Your total losses of more than 8 is a pure lie. It may be worth to take into account the US losses in Iraq, taking into account the mercenaries? + Afghanistan, it will be another 10 000 =) lol

North Korean involvement

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

There is already quite enough evidence for North Korean military personnel fighting alongside Syrian troops. Maybe include them alongside Russia, Iran and Hezbollah ? - ☣Tourbillon A ? 21:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC) This page has some good text already. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War Washington Post has an article too today. Legacypac (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I meant in the infobox. Currently they are listed under "Support", while they should be listed as an active belligerent. - ☣Tourbillon A ? 22:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

"Kurds"

Latest comment: 8 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion
 
Kurdish areas in 1976
 
Kurdish areas in 1992
 
Area currently controlled by the SDF/Rojava

The "Kurds" in the map should be replaced by either YPG Kurds or SDF. The "Kurds" are not a homogeneous group. There are Kurds on the side of the Syrian government, Syrian opposition as awell as ISIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liesbeth98 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That's WP:UNDUE. The Kurds joining ISIS are minuscule compared to the ones fighting in the YPG and other Kurdish affiliated groups. By placing such information into the article would make it appear as if there's a lot more Kurds fighting for ISIS than necessary. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Correct its WP:UNDUE SaintAviator lets talk 00:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi LoudLizard. I'm always very reluctant to revert at 1RR articles, even when I'm well out of the 24 hour period (as I am now). We should bear in mind that it appears there's some users who think such UNDUE information shouldn't be added. So IPs are going to edit-war over this, no doubt. The previous IP revert contained an edit-summary, there's also no doubt about that. But it looks like it's nothing but a WP:NINJA edit with no talk page participation and a vague and unsubstantiated edit-summary (i.e. "This belongs here"). So, as an immediate solution, I think there should be semi-protection on this controversial article. I also think that information that's being added/removed regarding the Kurds joining ISIS should take into consideration the ongoing talk page discussions, and not by IPs who revert just because they can. What do you think? By the way, I know your edits are in good faith, and I believe it's justified in it's own way. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
What the hell, you people just remove multiple sourced text on Kurds joining ISIS. wow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Liesbeth98 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
See WP:UNDUE. Just because something is sourced, doesn't mean it belongs in this article. Even the RS sources you provide say that the Kurds joining ISIS are a small and insignificant number (one of your sources says 70 people at most). If it's such a small number, it doesn't need to be on this page. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:13, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Other sources say up to a 1000, just add a line that a few are between the ranks of ISIS and other groups such as the Syrian government and FSA (Liwa Ahfad Salahuddin is a ethnically Kurdish group allied to FSA). Now if one reads the article it is like Kurds in Syria are an homogeneous group that are only active within the PYD, which is not correct. Liesbeth98 (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
All Kurds are not member of ISIS . Only this user User:Liesbeth98 wants them to make member of ISIS. Enxip (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
1000 Kurds still WP:UNDUE, IMHO. Possible exception if there are any PROMINENT Kurdish leaders, or a SPECIFIC GROUP of Kurds, who have defected to ISIS, or joined FSA. If its just individuals, then it lacks Kurdish cultural significance. ToolmakerSteve (talk) 03:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
There's a big difference between the area controlled by Rojava/SDF and the area inhabited by mostly Kurds, the Constitution of Rojava itself defines Rojava as the "confederation of Kurds, Arabs, Syriacs, Arameans, Turkmen, Armenians and Chechens", and the SDF consists of around 40% non Kurd. Would it be more accurate to label the yellow areas "Rojava (mostly Kurds)"? Editor abcdef (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Rojava's support

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Leader of YPJ says that YPG hasn't supported by Russia. They say that Russia hasn't supported them militarily.[1]. Just adding this source here so if later find other similar source, we can discuss about Russian role.Ferakp (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.hs.fi/ilta/27032016/a1458792980091
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_40&oldid=1091998944"