Jump to content

Talk:Russian involvement in the Syrian civil war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this sentence okay?

[edit]

"The war eventually led the country in to chaos, replacing a regime which originally purchased Russian arms with a weak government with alleged links to al Qaeda"

The bits in bold I think sound a bit pov. 82.153.35.70 (talk) 14:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I would suggest simply remove the sections of that extract which are POV (ie. stating that the country is in chaos and that the government is weak).
I too would like to question an extract for POV: "Since the Syrian uprising began in 2011 between President Bashar al-Assad's government and thousands of demonstrators, Russia has played a strategic role in the unfolding of the crisis on the world stage." Is this not also POV? This is an opinion which holds that Russia has had a role of any strategic importance, which some people may validly disagree with (eg. based on its firm support for a disliked regime). Can someone please suggest a neutral alternative for this? I personally cannot think of a better way to phrase it. Benjitheijneb (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You really think that the country in chaos is POV??? (EnochBethany (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Weapons

[edit]

No helicopters delivered so far and the Yak130 delivery was stopped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.115.180 (talk) 12:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Objectively updated readers on Russia's attempt to justify selling arms to the Syrian government. --Yaz7 (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed grammar.--Yaz7 (talk) 06:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entry is POV

[edit]

What, no "Qatar's role in the Syrian civil war"? No "Saudi Arabia's role in the Syrian civil war"? "France's role in the Syrian civil war"? "The role of the U.S. in the Syrian civil war"? "Iran's role in the civil war"? "Al Qaeda's role in the Syrian civil war"? Obviously "Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war" is sensible as a sub-topic under the "Syrian civil war" entry, and if that topic became too large it could be split off into its own article.Haberstr (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you alluded to yourself, I believe, the only reason this page exists is because it is a notable topic and it was getting too long for its parent page. If you want to make a page about Qatar, do it yourself, don't criticize this page's existence simply because we're all too lazy to make corresponding pages for other countries... --Yalens (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The West is and was always Russophobe, which is why there is a separate article on Russia's "role". Everything where Russia is envolved, the West tries to push their bias in any possible way.--Tomcat (7) 11:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What a battlefield mentality... don't just go deleting stuff just because you disagree with it. The article was written because it is notable and there are a lot of relevant sources, not because of some fantastical Western conspiracy...--Yalens (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't even think of creating an article "US role in Syrian conflict" or "NATO's role in Syrian conflict" or "Gulf Sheikh's role in Syrian conflict". They will be promptly deleted by so called Neutral Administrators. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 02:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Boy this needs revisions!!!!

[edit]

There are now Russian troops fighting in Syria and a huge airlift giving Assad weapons. Why no mention of this?YoursT (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian intervention

[edit]

It seems Russia is preparing military intervention to protect Syria. At the moment there are numerous military aircraft confirmed on the ground and the build up continues[1]. A while ago there was an article suggesting Putin might officially declare an intervention with China and Iran on 28th September in UN hen he will make a speech there.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 September 2015

[edit]
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: moved to ... involvement in the Syrian Civil War. DrKiernan (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– A few points of WP:CRITERIA support this, mostly conciseness and consistency with similar articles (e.g., France in the American Revolutionary War, Belgium in World War II). For the Iranian article, this may entail an expansion in scope, but I don't think it would be very problematic. -BDD (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a support vote, but an alternative proposal.GreyShark (dibra) 20:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the altered proposal of mr.77.42.228.142 ! Confusing: mr. 77.42etc. says he “supports” the proposal but then shows us that he does NOT really support it but prefers slightly different titles. But I do prefer those slightly altered titles mr. 77.42 gives, with the word “involvement...” inserted in it. Those titles seem to me easier to quickly understand for the bulk of the readers, and they are in line with quite a lot of similar articles (notwithstanding the fact that ‘France in the American Revolutionary War’ indeed is a counter-example. But in these ‘modern age’-articles, I prefer “involvement in…”). --Corriebertus (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but there isn't really consistency in that batch either, is there? See, "Jordanian intervention in the Syrian Civil War" (not "involvement"). I think the broad "Country in War" form saves us from having to decide on specific terminology that might not be appropriate for another case. It also allows us to discuss relationships between countries and the SCW even if that country isn't "involved", if necessary. --BDD (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support variant with involvement per above. 178.95.188.170 (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC) P.S. Also rename Jordanian intervention in the Syrian Civil War to Jordanian intervention in Syria (they made its intervention in Syria, but not in the civil war). 178.95.188.170 (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-Go with consistency. It is more succinct without involvement and intervention is slightly different than involvement. Also there is already an article on Russian intervention. Hollth (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - both to the original and the alternative proposals. I simply don't see the difference.GreyShark (dibra) 10:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As already noted above, there is no indication of there being a standard convention for WP:TITLE's of this nature. The current titles are perfectly fine. In fact, they both currently meet with WP:NDESC, whereas the proposed alternatives don't even meet with being grammatically correct. How are "Russia in the Syrian Civil War" and "Iran in the Syrian Civil War" meaningful for a reader? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How are they not? Are they unclear or otherwise confusing? (Is this maybe an ENGVAR issue?) --BDD (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the proposed titles were one or the other permutation of "Russia's involvement/Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War" and "Iran's involvement/Iranian involvement in the Syrian Civil War", they would be clear. As presented, they read as grammatically lazy conflation: i.e., has someone plonked the sovereign territory of the Russian Federation into or on top of Syria? Unless, in North American English, there is no ambiguity suggesting that another country has been physically put into the latter country, I don't believe it's an ENGVAR issue. We don't need to sacrifice COMMONSENSE in order to fulfil an unnatural and ambiguous sense of PRECISION for the sake of a single qualifier. See, also, 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine. During 2014 it was simply entitled "Russian military intervention in Ukraine". Unless they are related to specific project areas, titles don't need to follow a formula. Our role is to determine a COMMONNAME using RS, not to impose a GEVAL formula in order to create a false sense of NPOV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Lead

[edit]

I rewrote the lead because it was a mess and didn't actually cover Russia's role. Hopefully it's a little clearer now. Hollth (talk) 01:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's improvement. My very best wishes (talk) 14:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russian view on the cause of the Syrian Civil War

[edit]

This needs secondary sources. It is not a particularly notable speech, half of which is not related to the Civil war so it is both wp:undue and a wp:coatrack for Russian criticism of American foreign policy. My previous edit of it was reverted, so I am only going to remove the US foreign policy aspects for now. Hopefully a compromise may be reached. Hollth (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holith today removed 61% of the summary of Putin’s speech at the UN General Assembly (Sept.2015). The relevance of that summary-of-speech is, I believe, that it gives a (rather coherent, logical, comprehensible) picture of how Putin wants to see, and ‘frame’, that Syrian conflict. That removed 61% discusses (among more) some supposed “center of domination”, and suggests that certain powers are “pushing for democratic changes” in Syria. Putin doesn’t say ‘US’ but yes, he may (very likely) have meant the US. And then, yes, the statements may very well be perceived as “critiques of US foreign policy”, as Holith contends in his edit summary,12Oct.,03:02. And Holith does not want that in the article, because, as he contends: it is “unrelated”. I’m sorry, but that part of that speech obviously is very “related”, relevant, to what that section clearly is dwelling on: the Russian view (or narrative, or propaganda) on the conflict.
Perhaps H feels uncomfortable with someone criticizing the US; perhaps he disagrees with the criticism; perhaps he even assesses Putin’s speech to be (partly) sheer raving madness. That’s all very understandable: I too see sometimes statements, of politicians or others, cited in Wikipedia, that make me feel uncomfortable, or that I disagree with. But such feelings are no reasons for statements to be removed from our encyclopedia. Also we can’t fully rule out the possibility that Putin’s statement is indeed (partly) raving madness; but one of the prerogatives of being President of a (large) country (with a large army) is, that even your raving madness can at times become encyclopedic.
Here on Talk page, Holith contends the UN speech to be “not particularly notable…”, I disagree: I haven’t found elsewhere such a clear exposition of the Russian view/perspective/narrative(/propaganda). “…half of which is not related to the SCW”: the summary of the speech confines itself to reasonings pertaining or applicable to the SCW. “…undue”: Holith refers to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, saying articles must not take sides but explain sides. Well: if the section heading clearly says, warns, that it is only presenting the Russian view, that clearly suggests that other, conflicting, views are possible and probably exist (and are presented on appropriate pages). Presenting a (political) view neutrally, without bias, is habitually (though not exclusively) done by directly citing the protagonist, in this case Putin. If this presentation of the Russian view is incomplete or incorrect or biased, please improve it. ‘Undue’: sometimes a view or philosophy can be complicated and/or unususal to a degree that it can’t be conveyed in just a few sentences or paragraphs. “Coatrack”: “…an article, edited to make a point about a tangential subject” using the nominal subject only as “coat-rack (…) to hang irrelevant and biased material”: I explained above why this ‘material’ is not irrelevant to the nominal subject (Russian involvement in SCW ; Russian view/narrative) but highly relevant. Holith hopes for some “compromise” here. I’m always open for compromises, but compromising will come into consideration only as soon as Holith (or someone else) brings up criticism on that section that cuts ice. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And, by the way: discussing this issue with Holith, on 9 October, has already lead to the section's title being improved: thanks, Holith. That is also a form of compromise? --Corriebertus (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, both of you. Working on articles with this kind of POV interest and traffic can sometimes lead to two (in my opinion) good editors getting their wires crossed. Glad you've worked it out and improved the content (again my personal opinion, of course). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is why secondary sources are needed. The speech is not hugely notable according to the RS that I read. I consider it undue because it occupies such a large amount of space for something RS call non-notable, not by virtue of its inclusion. It should be included, but in a summarised form and supported by secondary sources. Yes, Putin is talking about the US as also stated in RS, but Russian critiques of US foreign policy do not belong in this article about the SCW just because they are said during the period of the war. Hollth (talk) 03:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna Harpy While you are here, what is your opinion on it? I have the feeling Corriebertus and I will end up agreeing to disagree so it would be good to have a third opinion on this. Hollth (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently neutral on the subject matter, Hollth. Staying uninvolved, but continuing to keep an eye on the article, leaves me in a better position to act as a third party should disagreements escalate. As I have my fingers in too many controversial article pies already, adding another to my repertoire isn't a good idea unless it's imperative. If the agreeing to disagree leads to a serious tug of war, I have no objections to being pinged. I'm not seeing this as being at that stage as yet (I think we all have enough experience to know the difference between 'frustrating' and 'this has become impossibly serious' by now). If there is a query as to specific content that concerns you, however, please feel free to point it out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I still maintain that the section needs to be summarised using secondary sources and that criticisms of US foreign policy is outside of the scope of this article, I will take your neutrality as a sign that it is not as egregious as I believe. To that end I see no reason to continue to pursue this as it will only cause conflict and slow down progress. Hollth (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Holith(13Oct,03:18) repeats that the speech of Putin (28Sep2015) is not “hugely notable” (according to “RS that I read”). I on the other hand have argued (here, 12 Oct.) why I consider the speech notable: the speech gives “a clear exposition of…”. If Holith doesn’t react really on my honest arguments (here, and probably elsewhere) and flees into vaguenesses such as this anonymous ‘RS that I read (??) consider it not hugely (???) notable’, he is not really honestly discussing to reach progress together, in the benefit of the article, he is only trying, one way or another, to ‘get his way’.
Also, I’ve explained (here, 12 October) how and why criticism of Putin on the US seems to land in this article, Holith again does not react on my arguments, just stubbornly keeps saying that he wants that out of the article, for being 'outside of the scope'. I've told him why and how it comes 'inside the scope', but he simply doesn't want to read or hear that and doesn't bother to react on that. That’s not discussing. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Holith said here (15Oct), he wanted the section “summarised using secondary sources”. I can agree that it could be summarized, therefore I today have scrapped a part of it. I (still) don’t see what he exactly means with “using [more] secondary sources” for summarizing it. Ofcourse, if secondary sources have important news to say on the subject, that news can be added. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of Putin’s narrative

[edit]

In June 2013, Russian President Putin said, that Assad’s neglecting to “reform” Syria was (one of) the cause(s) of the Syrian uprising. In September 2015 (UN speech), Putin apparently had profoundly changed his view on Syria, or at least changed his narrative—the story he wants (part of) the outside world to believe to be his view—on the situation in Syria: in his new narrative certain unnamed states or forces have been pushing for “so-called” democratic revolution in Syria which has resulted only in violence, poverty and disaster.
That new narrative is considerably different, perhaps even incompatible, with Putin’s previous (2013) narrative. Everyone has the right to change his mind or his narrative, also Putin has the right to change his mind or his narrative. But how do we present all those narratives, old and new, in the article? Until 15 October, we had Putin’s old 2013 narrative presented in section: ‘Political efforts and statements – 2013’, and his actual September2015 narrative in section: ‘Russian view on cause of Syrian Civil War’.
In two unmotivated edits on 15 October, Holith moved Putin’s 2013 view from mentioned 2013 section to the section of the 2015 narrative. If Holith is reading this, and there’s a fair chance he will, I ask him: could you please motivate your Wikipedia edits? Cooperation on Wikipedia will become a lot easier if we know from colleagues why they changed an article the way they did. That 15 October move of Holith seems not a good idea: Putin’s 2013 statement was correctly placed in that 2013 subsection of ‘political statements’. Putin’s 2015 view seems to contradict his 2013 view, therefore it is doubtful that that 2013 statement of Putin would still be valid as actual Russian position, view, bearing on Syria. If Putin in 2015 had still wanted to (partly) blame Assad for the situation, he could have said so in his UN speech, but he did not. The ‘blaming Assad’ is no longer part of Putin’s narrative (or propaganda) on Syria: the story he wants (part of) his public now to know and remember as to be his view on Syria.
To make clearer that section 3 displays the Russian view (narrative) as in force today, I’ve slightly adapted that section heading. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a simple point of clarification, there is no contradiction between recognizing both needed reform in Syria, and external support for rebellion, simultaneously. Nobody, not even the U.S. and Gulf States, would deny that there has been heavy support for rebel forces. The dispute concerns whether that's a good thing or not. -Darouet (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One need not see the SCW as being the result of a single cause. No contradiction, so I moved it there. The previous heading was less emotive and not POV. Narrative implies falsehood, view does not. Actual is both redundant and non-encyclopaedic in tone. Hollth (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Holith wrote:
  • “One need not see the SCW as being the result of a single cause”. No one had stated that, so I don’t see what that has to do with things here.
  • “No contradiction”. This, I presume, refers to my remark: “Putin’s 2015 view seems to contradict his 2013 view”. In that case, Holith apparently implies: Putin in 2015 still blames the SCW partly on Assad (like he(Putin) said in 2013)? When Holith on 17 October put the Putin-2013 statement under section “Russian view…” he implied that the Putin-2013 statement (blaming Assad for the Syrian uprising) is still today part of Russia’s view on the SCW. (I disagree on that assumption of Holith.)
  • “Narrative implies falsehood”. Why do you say or think that? ‘Narrative’ is, to my idea, the way how any politician chooses to present the actual reality (or history). Every politician always makes a selection of facts which he mentions or emphasises in his speeches, while at the same time ‘downplaying’, or keeping silence about, some other facts. That does not imply falsehood or lying, I believe. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A reaction on Darouet(16Oct): a dispute about whether ‘support for rebel forces’ or ‘recognizing needed reform in Syria’ “is good or not”, can perhaps be held in our private lives, as civilians. But in Wikipedia, including on this Talk page, our disputes should only be about how to present facts (including statements and opinions of politicians) as correct and clear as possible in our articles. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Corrie your response mischaracterizes my comment and fails to answer its central point: that your effort to editorially create a Russian 180 policy shift is based on the false idea that needed reform and foreign involvement are incompatible causes of civil war. -Darouet (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Darouet: I have not “characterized” your comment. I may have misunderstood it, but that is human, and not a crime.
I have not said that ‘needed reform’ and ‘foreign involvement’ are incompatible causes. But I do have assumed an evolution, a gradual shift, in the Russian narrative, perhaps even in the Russian view, on the SCW: therefore I have placed the ‘new’ Putin-2015-statement (narrative) apart from his older statements, in my edit of 8Oct.,11:47. After Holith’s comment here 17Oct and his simultaneous article edit, I’ve come back from that intention, and have again simply added the Sept2015 Putin-statement back in line with all previous Russian statements. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background

[edit]

I think a background heading would be useful to have in this article, so I am adding one. However, due to the complexity of the situation and the need for brevity (it is only background info after all), I am unsure what ought to be included and committed etc., so I would like some feedback on what people think would be appropriate. Hollth (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Circassian

[edit]

With respect to this part Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War#Circassian diaspora Does anybody know how it is a motivation? It doesn't say in the subsection so I looked at the sources and the main page, but I can't see anything. Hollth (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colleague, we seem to think alike, sometimes. Without even having seen your comment here about subsection 'Circassian', I've removed it, 22Oct., 09:06, with an edit-motivation somewhat like your reasoning here. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Code breakage!

[edit]

The wikitext in this article is seriously broken, especially with regards as to section 5 (Military support for the Assad government) and section 6 (Cooperation attempts with US), though the problematic code that is causing it all may lie in an earlier section. I would try to fix the problem, but I don't have time at the moment. Assistance would be greatly appreciated. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ceannlann are you still seeing this or can we remove the tag? Hollth (talk)
Sorry Hollth, code is still broken. Ceannlann gorm (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that anyone has tackled this breakage, and I can't see what the problem is. Unless someone actually describes the problem properly, it can't be rectified. What, exactly, is the problem? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There does not seem to be any evident breakage, however some of the directional and typographical quote characters were cleaned up (see MOS:QUOTEMARKS). This situation should be deemed closed unless @Ceannlann gorm: can specify what the actual breakage is (an example passage, precise location where breakage is occurring, not a general section reference). It could also be a case of user-specific browser/plugin rendering problems (see Wikipedia:Browser notes). Dl2000 (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename revert

[edit]

I'm reverting rename to Russian involvement in the Syria war to original Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Please go through a full rename procedure per WP:RENAME prior to renaming such an article. Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 17:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment on White Helmets controversy

[edit]

Hi, there is an RfC on the White Helmets controversy, and you are invited to participate.-GPRamirez5 (GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_involvement_in_the_Syrian_civil_war&oldid=1209507965"