Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

→

Archive 45

"Spillover of the Iraqi Insurgency"

This line in the infobox is a bit confusing, considering the Iraqi Insurgency is called "Spillover of the Syrian Civil War" on its own article. It basically makes an endless "see also" loop. I'm guessing this confusion is because it is referring to two different Iraqi insurgences, the one from 2003-2011 and the one from 2013ish-ongoing. Any thoughts?--Monochrome_Monitor 02:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I changed it accordingly. Personally I don't think the Syrian Civil war is exactly spillover of the Iraqi Insurgency at all, unless you refer to ISIS specifically, though the conflict itself was more of an Arab Spring thing. In broad terms you could say they are sort of related, but I think it's tenuous. --Monochrome_Monitor 02:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Even the Nusra Front is an offshoot of al Qaeda in Iraq. Only the Free Syrian Army appears to be strictly indigenous. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The Free Syrian Army was much more relevant in 2011, but now the conflict is basically government vs Iraqi-born terrorist groups (also Kurds). --Monochrome_Monitor 15:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Does the FSA is actually native? The Muslim Brotherhood (linked to Hamas) is the major force behind the FSA. 191.185.217.201 (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The party is pan-Sunni I guess, wasn't founded in Syria, but that does not mean it's members aren't Syrian. FunkMonk (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Monochrome Monitor, that isn't accurate. The Free Syrian Army's Southern Front is one of the strongest military opposition forces in Syria. The regime is basically fighting on three fronts; the FSA in the South, hardline Islamist opposition in the North, and ISIS in the East and central Syria. Granted Assad is losing on all three fronts so it is hard to tell, but these fronts are distinct. Nulla Taciti (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Constant underestimation and predictions of imminent demise is part of what has kept Assad in power the last few years. Everyone in this war is fighting several fronts against numerous players, including the FSA, which is probably the weakest player in Syria. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying FSA is totally irrelevant, I'm saying it's far weaker than the Islamist opposition. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, that is a false generalization. Different factions are stronger depending on the region, I would encourage you to stick to WP:RS and read beyond the headlines. And thanks for your opinionated (and unsolicited) screed FunkMonk, always a pleasure. Nulla Taciti (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but as a whole, ISIS is stronger than the FSA. That's a fact. I overgeneralized though. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Also I think we're getting off topic. This was about the Syrian Civil War being attributed to the Iraqi Insurgency (2011-ongoing), which has since been changed. --Monochrome_Monitor 16:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you're quite welcome, Nully. FunkMonk (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

ISIS originated in Iraq. This is confirmed by a host of reliable sources. This group spread to Syria, originating from the Iraqi insurgency. If it were not for the Iraqi insurgency, ISIS would not exist, and the Syrian Civil War would be very different. Therefore it warrants inclusion. DylanLacey (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed DylanLacey, ISIS is essentially a foreign entity operating within Syria — the clue is in the title. Nulla Taciti (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Note that the group changed its name when it entered Syria, hence the S/L (Sham/Levant) in ISIS/L, therefore the name isn't really an argument. The membership in Syria includes a lot of Syrians (including former Nusra etc. members), not just Iraqis/other foreigners. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal of the Ghouta Chemical Attack map in the Chemical weapons section

I removed the map that was published by the White House on 30 August 2013. Most of the neighborhoods reportedly affected only reflected movement of patients (see the note under the map) . Affected neighborhoods were Zamalka and nearby Ein Tarma in Eastern Ghouta, and Muadamiyat al-Sham in Western Ghouta. Ref. UN and HRW reports. See also Ghouta_chemical_attack#The_attacks and Talk:Ghouta_chemical_attack#Info_box_map. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Israel support Insurgents

Tons of sources confirmed that since 2013 http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/New-UN-report-reveals-collaboration-between-Israel-and-Syrian-rebels-383926 http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/02/israel-syria-rebels-jihad-sunni-shiite-golan-heights.html http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2014/1207/UN-reports-Israeli-support-for-Syria-rebels — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 16:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC) http://www.businessinsider.com/its-not-too-late-to-empower-the-moderate-rebels-of-syria-2014-10 http://www.timesofisrael.com/syrian-rebel-commander-says-he-collaborated-with-israel/ --LogFTW (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep. But no source will be good enough, as long as the Israelis don't confirm it themselves. That's the double standards of western media. Any half-baked rumour about Putin, Kim Jong Un or Assad are front page news, though. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

The Jews killed severals Syrians troops and helping Al Qaeda take severals positions in south of Syria they shot down warplane too - Israel must be added in the Insurgent side --LogFTW (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

"The Jews" -- really? This kind of discourse has no place on Wikipedia, IMO. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That's right, but the point remains, Israel supports at least the Nusra Front. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

"At least the Nusra Front". Not only is there no evidence for that, all available sources point to them cooridinating on an extremely limited basis with the moderate Free Syrian Army (medical aid, etc.). If you are just going to parrot POV garbage you should troll Twitter with Partisangirl, and not bother contributing to this subject on Wikipedia.Nulla Taciti (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, but empty barking doesn't change the facts. "Israel’s health ministry says around 1,000 Syrians have received treatment in Golan hospitals, but maintains that only civilians are treated. The UNDOF report, on the other hand, says they have seen Israelis treating civilians as well as insurgents, including members of al-Qaida and Islamic State." http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/New-UN-report-reveals-collaboration-between-Israel-and-Syrian-rebels-383926 FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, but rendering medical aid to individuals who's alleged militant affiliations are unknown by the people rendering aid proves nothing. Nulla Taciti (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Said like a true IDF spokesman. So how do you know the Israelis, who are monitoring their border and everything that happens across it, knew less about the affiliations of people that they LET IN and interact with on a daily basis, than UN people who only observed them doing it? But well, I should just stop myself here, Israel can do no wrong. Assad is to blame, and Israelis are just benevolent angels who treat every wounded Arab they come across, as long as they are not Gazan children. FunkMonk (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

From the horse's mouth: "“Those Sunni elements who control some two-thirds to 90% of the border on the Golan aren't attacking Israel. This gives you some basis to think that they understand who is their real enemy - maybe it isn’t Israel,” Yadlin is quoted by The Wall Street Journal as saying."[1] FunkMonk (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I've seen claims that the differing directions of shadows in the commonly circulated pictures show that they were doctored, and that Iran is trying to promote the idea of Syrian non-gov forces being Israeli-backed. No idea how true. Banak (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

WSJ is a RS. Israel should be added as a supporter to Al Nusra Front in the infobox. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree theres ton of RS Israeli support of Al Nusra Front. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Star72 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Er, shadows of what? Of the UN reports and Jerusalem Post articles? And former Israeli defence personnel quotes? I'm sure Iran forced them all. Please, let's keep this serious, and please read the comments. No one has posted photos or videos here. FunkMonk (talk) 10:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for slow response, forgot my own previous comment here. I meant this widespread picture and the shadows of the people in it, though they don't look fake to me. Though as to what this photo actually shows... Banak (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

So the numerous reliable sources that announce cooperation between Israel and insurgents based on UN reports are invalidated by a photo that the reports don't refer to? What's the point? FunkMonk (talk) 08:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I support adding Israel to the infobox. There are multiple confirmed reports of direct and indirect Israeli support to rebels by targeting Syrian government and allies, providing intelligence and logistical support to rebels, etc. It's ridiculous North Korea is included in infobox but Israel not.--Kathovo talk 09:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, reports =/= evidence. So far, Israel is retaliating for attacks on its territory and bombing weapons supplies sent to Hezbollah. Some people seems to forget, that Israel and Syria are still in the state of war. Besides if Israel really supported rebels, IAF would have turned lots of SAA positions to dust a long time ago. Rebell44 (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

So which attacks are the Israelis responding to? They've attacked Syria/Hezbollah positions many times the last few years without real provocation. They only stopped when Hezbollah blasted a bunch of IDF a few weeks ago. As for turning "SAA positions to dust", which other foreign state which supports the insurgents has done that? Your point is moot. The Israelis want the insurgents to weaken the SSA and Hezbollah, they don't have to do much other than patch them up and send them back, as well as act as their airforce once in a while. That'll keep Nusra and friends from their door. FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

majority of incidents were IDF shelling SAA positions after SAA fired artilery shells hitting israeli territory + SAA troops shooting at IDF patrols. Airstrikes targeted weapons which were being sent to Hezbollah - who as a terrorist group are legitimate target, especially in the country with which Israel is at war. Israel treats every injured person that gets to their border - that hardly counts as military support for either side.Rebell44 (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Just like a true IDF spokesperson would explain it... No, "Israeli territory" has not been targeted, the Golan is Syrian according to international law. And even when it has been hit, the IDF has only attacked SSA forces, even when they did now know the source of fire. Israel has attacked Syrian targets many more times than Turkey has, which is the main backer of the terrorists. And Israel treats all wounded at the border? Are you joking? How many SSA and Hezbollah soldiers have they treated? Or Gazan children, for that matter? All they do is patch up al Qaeda insurgents so they can go back and kill more Arabs for them. Anyhow what you "hardly count" is irrelevant, all that matters is reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - just like most previous discussions on this topic there is not much new in LogFTW's statement about Israeli so called "involvement", which relies on WP:SYNTH theories running around social networks - connecting various loosely related events, which are "rumored" to be related to Israel. Aside to that there is indeed a constant Israel-Hezbollah tension, as part of the Iran-Israel proxy conflict, which is not directly related with the Syrian Civil War (even if Israel was indeed behind some of the ascribed attacks, which is not so evident, as Syrian air and ground is full of foreign forces of various nature and loyalty). I do give a credit however to LogFTW for successfully showing a sectarian nature of the Middle East in one of the most conspiracy-style and in a way racist announcements "The Jews killed severals Syrians troops and helping Al Qaeda"; spectacular!GreyShark (dibra) 17:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

So which of the links above are synth theories from social networks? The UN reports? The Jerusalem Post article? Could we stick to discussing the reliable sources provided here instead of red herrings? FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Just look below - while you claim "Israel supports Al-Nusra", Emesik suggests that "Israel supports FSA" and brings a "proof" that Al-Nusra caught an FSA commander who "confessed of cooperating with Israel". Now i ask - what is going on here? Whom is Israel "supporting"?GreyShark (dibra) 15:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Just about anyone who is willing to fight Iran's allies. The UN states delegations from several groups, not just Nusra, have been meeting Israeli military. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

There's enough evidence to say that Israel has provided non-lethal support to rebels. This is clear, but if I understand it well, in the infobox we are including only those who provide armaments or direct support in military actions. These two sources claim that lethal support also has been provided:

• http://www.abna24.com/english/service/middle-east-west-asia/archive/2014/08/14/631067/story.html
• http://www.businessinsider.com/its-not-too-late-to-empower-the-moderate-rebels-of-syria-2014-10

For me it is enough to include Israel in the infobox, perhaps with an (alleged) note. --Emesik (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - please notice that the initiator of this discussion is now blocked.GreyShark (dibra) 16:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

And keep in mind that all his links are reliable sources. The messenger is completely irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

There's no evidence that Israel is providing military aid to rebel groups (except maybe the Kurds), but they are definitely treating militants in Israeli hospitals. But with this in mind, lots of Syrians, mostly civillians, are treated in Israel so this can't be called support. --Monochrome_Monitor 23:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

What kind of "evidence" do you expect? AFAIK we rely on sources, not evidence material. --Emesik (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

If we aren't adding Israel cause its support is logistal/indirect, why is North Korea there? --Monochrome_Monitor 23:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

So how does that explain that they're meeting up with Nusra (al Qaeda) and other Islamist delegations, and letting them into their bases? Surely for humanitarian reasons? And who says they're treating "mostly civilians"? And if they're benevolent enough to treat al Qaeda terrorists, why not Hamas and Hezbollah members? You guessed it, because they're cosy with the former group. Furthermore, why have they not exchanged fire with Syrian Islamist insurgents even once? FunkMonk (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Everyone knows Israel prefers Sunni terrorists to Shia terrorists, that's no secret. They probably do have some sort of temporary truce, but they're definitely not allies. Right now both are more threatened by Assad/Iran than eachother. Once Assad goes, they will turn on eachother. Saying Israel is "cozy" with al Nursra is like saying that America was "cozy" with Stalin by fighting Hitler. Also, there's no evidence that Al Quaeda is meeting in IDF bases, where did you hear that? As for Israel treating Syrians, this is very well documented , even in arabic media. The vast majority of those treated are civillians, though some are combatants. As for Hamas and Hezbollah, they treat them too, albeit less often since the situation in Syria is much worse. Here's more links on Israel treating Syrians: As for exchanging fire with Islamists, it's foolish for them to open a new front, especially with the strongest military in the region. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hamas, and all Palestinians apart from a few Christians and Druze, are Sunnis, so I wouldn't be too sure about your first point. Israel just likes to play Arabs out against each other, they don't care what sect they belong to. They're just more afraid of Iran and Hezbollah than by al Qaeda and any Sunni state, but that is not because of their sects. They had fine relations with the Shah after all (so did the Saudis), and he was of course Shia. Same goes with their relations to Azerbaijan, a Shia state. As for cosy ties with al Qaeda, you do know that the Nusra Front is the official branch of al Qaeda in Syria, right? And again, I didn't ask whether Israel treats Syrians or not, but how you know that "most" of those they treat are civilians? FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

They don't have any ideological problem with Shia, they just see them as more of a threat because Shia militants are generally backed by Iran, and Iran is far more of a threat to Israel than the Gulf States. As for playing Arabs against eachother, what is the Syrian war about? It's sectarian. Arabs have been fighting Arabs since Muhammad died. What Syrians are worried about isn't Arab unity, its Assad, Hezbollah, and to a lesser extent ISIS. Also, you have yet to show me any concrete evidence that Israel supports al-Nusra beyond treating some of their fighters. As for whether the Syrians they treat are mostly civilians, its a numbers game. The number of militants they have reportedly treated is dwarfed by the total number of Syrians. . Even articles about Israel treating militants admit that the majority are civilians .--Monochrome_Monitor 16:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

So which of the articles you linked states the majority of the Syrians treated were civilians? None, as far as I could see, they only state Israel once claimed they only treated civilians, which was obviously a lie. And if the Syrian civil war was merely sectarian, I wonder why Sunni Islamist groups fight each other and likewise Sunni Kurdish and tribal Arab groups as much as they fight Shia factions. Also, much of Syria's government and army is Sunni (secular Baathists). And yes, Israel is only afraid of Iran and its allies because all other states in the region are aligned with the US, not because they're Sunni or Shia. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Israel has treated over 1500 Syrians on their dime, its pure speculation to say that the majority are combatants, speculation which is completely unsupported by evidence. You of course ignore all evidence that doesn't conform to your belief that Israel is inherently evil. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Spare us the red herrings. You said "The vast majority of those treated are civillians". You haven't backed it up with anything. So who here is "speculating"? FunkMonk (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

"Most of the patients are believed to have been civilians, though Ziv Hospital staff say many of the men treated are rebel fighters. When I ask Yousef if he’s with the Free Syrian Army, he denies it, but one nurse says he has privately confided this fact to hospital staff." Almost all sources indicate that only a minority are combatants, with the exception maybe of Press TV. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Israel doesn't support Insurgents, Israel fights against Assad, and as result, it helps the Insurgents. Isael should be added to the infobox. Guyhaddad (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, Monochrome, you say "almost all sources", then provide a single source that says nothing of the sort. All it says is that one of the "civilians" was lying, and that the hospital staff only "believe" most treated are civilians. So certainly not a very confident claim. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: This report [2] gives a comprehensive account of support Israel is giving to Nusra, with links to various reliable news sources who also corroborate this. One notable report is by UNDOF where their observers saw and I quote “Israeli soldiers ‘handing over two boxes to armed members of the opposition’ from the Israeli-occupied side to the Syrian-controlled side” on one occasion. Also, one other source notes “the remnants of bombs with labels in Hebrew were found” in the area of conflict. So, based on all of these reports, I also support adding Israel to the infobox in the supported by section (as most editors here seem to agree). EkoGraf (talk) 16:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

References

• More confirmation by the Iranian propaganda outlet Ynet News: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4655669,00.html FunkMonk (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Yemen in the infobox

There is a real anachronism in putting Yemen into the infobox:

• First of all, the Houthi government of Yemen is largely unrecognized
• Secondly, the source used to justify Yemen's inclusion is from 2013, prior to the coup d'etat and of course prior to the establishment of the Houthi government. So it is clearly anachronistic.

It is hence evident that while there is some evidence to put Houthis in the infobox, putting Yemen is clearly misleading.GreyShark (dibra) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, changed as per reference. Interesting that the usual suspects howling that the Assad regime is supposedly the "internationally recognized" government of Syria don't seem to mind coups when they agree with them. Nulla Taciti (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Similar to how those howling at the Assad regime for bombing civilians keep silent over the Saudis bombing Yemeni civilians? Anyhow, no, Yemen has nothing to do here. FunkMonk (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

More human rights violations by Assad than IS? Really?

Despite all the evidence that IS are carrying out an increasing number outrages and terror attacks, Wikipedia continue to maintain the fiction that 'vast majority of the abuses having been committed by the Syrian government'. Given widespread reports of events on ground, could not this one-sided comment be corrected to reflect the truth of what is really happening inside Syria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.253.9 (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a simple fact that the crimes of the Assad regime are still FAR greater than those of IS or any other faction in Syria. The number of civilians murdered by the regime is possibly ten times greater than by everyone else combined. IS has mainly only been killing civilians by executions. [The greatest IS crimes have been in Iraq.] What "terror attacks" carried out by IS inside Syria are you talking about? Dropping barrels full of shrapnel and high explosives on civilians definitely constitutes terror attacks (thousands of them), but you know who is doing this. The regime's terrorism against its own people has been massive. Or the untold abuses in regime prisons, in which hundreds of thousands unfortunate people have disappeared? All the apologists for this appalling, murderous tyranny will be very soon put in shame. 188.67.152.247 (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

So could you please document this "simple fact"? According to the pro-opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, half of those killed in the war are pro-government fighters.[3][4] The second half are opposition fighters as well as civilians. And among these civilians are of course also a large amount who were pro-government. So please, keep your "simple facts" out of here if you can't back them up. FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"Seven countries, in five years"

Since there are plans to take out seven countries in five years (starting with Iraq, and moving to Syria), then someone clearly needs to paint Assad as black as possible. And yet, bit-by-bit, the apologists for the appalling, murderous tyranny that is FSA (and IS) will be put to shame by the simple facts. But for now, such people are unlikely to admit that vast majority of terror stories have been produced by them. For the people behind the 'Gay Girl' YourTube videos - and other faked stories - are not goimg to put their hands up and say, 'fair cop, it was us!' So how likely is it that people involved in Black-Ops would give the Syrian government a fair break? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.247.90 (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Use of non-free images

I edited out the non-free File:Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar.jpg from the article per WP:NFCCE because it did not have the separate, specific non-free use rationale required for this particular article per WP:NFCC#10c. I am not sure if there are other such images being used in this template, but they should be removed as well if they are lacking the required non-free use rationale. Moreover, non-free images are only supposed to be used in the article mainspace per WP:NFCC#9 so use only other pages (e.g., userpages, drafts, etc.) is not allowed. So, any non-free images being used in this template which do not satisfy all 10 of the criteria for non-free use should be removed too. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

map is not correct

Ariha is Nusra territory, should be grey.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/11638630/Al-Nusra-Front-rebels-take-Idlibs-last-Syria-regime-bastion-in-pictures.html

45.58.86.28 (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Bring it up on the module talkpage Banak (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Israeli Support

here. 191.185.206.216 (talk) 13:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Excessive use of questionable sources

So, even as a Westener, I have to say this article is extremely politically advantageous for mainly America and the Gulf. It hurts the credibility of Wikipedia and turns it into another propaganda tool. The carefully picked focus points have been to paint Assad as the sole initiator. A lone president cannot and would not on his own keep his country free from global opposition for 4 years. The attempts to say Iran and Russia are behind it remind me of the Cold War. The Gulf and America have long opposed the Russian-aligned forces of Iran, Syria and Shi'ites, this much we know. We know that the (Sunni) Free Syrian Army was largely assembled and trained by the former countries. When an ISIS pops up and soon covers nearly all of the FSA territory, is this not noteworthy?

Anyhow, many of these sources are tabloids and sensationalist newspapers. And really, two Voice of America references? We might as well credit the US government for that one. Then maybe after that we could at least globalize it a bit. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 14:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"When an ISIS pops up and soon covers nearly all of the FSA territory, is this not noteworthy?" You're damn right it's noteworthy, that's why there are entire sections of articles devoted to the subject: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Allegations of Syrian support. Please actually read around the subject before going on another WP:CONSPIRACY tinged screed. Nulla Taciti (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sunni support keeps the government alive

Contrary to conventional wisdom: https://www.ctc.usma.edu/?p=35407 FunkMonk (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The article states that "The nature of authoritarian regimes makes it difficult to gauge feelings of approval (or opposition)" (admitting basically that the whole article is speculation), and then argues that regime support is based on the Assad family's nepotism and wealthy corrupt capitalist Sunni urbanites rather than sectarianism. I'm not sure this (actually quite conventional and often repeated) hypothesis is really any "better" or is going to convince anyone that Assad should remain dictator for life. Nulla Taciti (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure how the last part of your comment is relevant, every side in this conflict is corrupt, there is no moral high ground, only allegiance matters. Sorry to burst your bubble. The dominant media narrative is that the government is sectarian, and that 2 million Alawites have somehow been able to fight off 20 million Sunnis for four years. But the fact is that most government supporters are Sunnis, most in the government are Sunnis, and the Assad family are just short of being converts to Sunni Islam. What the government mainly represents is secular Sunnis, which are a dime dozen in the opposition (which consists mainly of Salafists and opportunists). Same situation as in Egypt and Libya. Most of those who escaped the Jisr al-Shugour siege were Sunnis as well.[5] FunkMonk (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Tolerating the regime's temporary existence because they give you a paycheck ≠ supporting the regime. That's why the (Sunni) Kurds will kick the Ba'athists out of Jazira Canton the second the regime goes broke (i.e. Iran stops funding it) and ceases to be useful. Nulla Taciti (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So who gives the larger paychecks, the oily Gulf billionaires, or the economically bankrupt Assad government? By your logic, all defections could be explained by Qatar and friends simply writing the bigger paychecks, which appears to have been the case. And no, the Kurds would not do Erdogan's bidding, which is why they are pretty much friendly with the Syrian government. And the government is likely to hand the Kurds (at least partial) autonomy anyway, as a counterweight to the Salafist rebels and Turkey. FunkMonk (talk) 05:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Saudi/Turkish support of al-Nusra

This is not indicated in the info at the top. It should be.

Here is an article now confirming that supposed "allies" of the West are now openly arming al-Qaeda (probably because there is no truly 'moderate' opposition; what a joke that was. Where is Sopher?)

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/15/8771999/this-is-how-crazy-syria-policy-has-gotten — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.18.64 (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

NDF number should be 100,000 not 80,000

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21647367-shia-militias-are-proliferating-middle-east-shia-crescendo

204.197.185.78 (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hard to know reliable numbers. While I agree with your numbers, the question is - who publishes these numbers? 2A02:8388:1600:6900:D9FD:1933:A841:5320 (talk) 13:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

The article is not neutrally worded.

For instance, take this statement here:

"Rebel advances led to government and Hezbollah morale plunging dramatically."

The link goes to stratfor. There is no mention at all of the linked-in statement. So why is this in an article like that? That is pure propaganda. 2A02:8388:1600:6900:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Whenever you see such discrepancy between source and text, you can remove it on sight. FunkMonk (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Number of besieged people

SAMS estimates that that there are more than 640,200 people living under long-term siege in Syria, more than three times the current UN OCHA estimate of 212,000.

Syrian American Medical Society (March 2015), Slow Death: Life and Death in Syrian Communities Under Siege, p. 5.

--YeOldeGentleman (talk) 00:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Added it myself! --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Turkey in the same column as Kurds

It seems strange to have Turkey in the same column as Kurds, because Turkey is also bombing some Kurd positions. Although, on the other hand, they are also fighting IS, which is currently the main enemy of Kurds. --46.234.78.146 (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That's what the line is for. Nusra has also fought with the FSA. Anyhow, the way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if we end up moving the Kurds to the government column... FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War: Title

The title of the page is not good. It insinuates as if there is a civil war, as in - syrians versus syrians. While this is surely partially correct, it also is correct without a doubt that foreign fighters participate. It does not matter who, it does not matter where, but this means that OUTSIDERS fight in a "civil war", which makes the term inconsistent and not logical.

I suggest a more neutral term. As it stands, the article is extremely one sided in favour of what certain other non-syrian governments describe or wish to convey, and while I can understand that wikipedia does not want to adopt the position of the syrian government, wikipedia should also be NEUTRAL and not use terms which are technically not correct. Who decided on the term "Syrian Civil War" anyway, corporate media? 2A02:8388:1600:6900:D9FD:1933:A841:5320 (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Spanish Civil War, Finnish Civil War, and Greek Civil War all had outside participants, but got stuck with those names. Plus, per WP:COMMONNAME, the article's title should be the most common name, and most sources refer to the conflict as the Syrian Civil War. Compassionate727 (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Also prominent are the Russian Civil War and, more recently, the Iraqi Kurdish Civil War, the Somali Civil War, the first Libyan Civil War (2011), and the Yemeni Civil War (2015). In fact, most modern civil wars feature foreign volunteers or even state aid of some sort for one or both sides, in part because of the proxy wars of the Cold War. ansh666 22:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit these pages, but I know that the chemical weapons statements are false. The only record of chemical weapons has been debunked as a hoax by bbc. As in bbc staged the entire thing. Do a quick search on the net, there is plenty of evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.41.51 (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or country. Clearly this is what is happening in Syria (there is no fight between two different countries in any traditional sense. No country has invaded Syria and Syria has invaded no one. Outside assistance means nothing as it is common. Legacypac (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

How about the term "revolution" or "revolutionary war"?? I am a Syrian, and I know for a fact that millions of Syrians from all parties of the conflict know that the main goal of the conflict was and still is to remove the government of Bashar Al-Assad, which is the definition of Revolution. Please refer to this page"difference between revolution and civil war for more info on difference between civil war and revolution. I quote from the cited source: "The most important difference between a revolution and a civil war is that civilians directly revolt against the government in a revolution whereas factions wage a war against each other in a civil war"Majd alshoufi (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

There are clearly factions waging war against each other, if you haven't noticed. ansh666 20:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

To a point, every revolution is a civil war, but I would like to redraw attention to the most important factor in naming a revolution, namely, the GOALS of the conflict. There is a consensus that the millions of demonstrators, who later carried arms, have in their main goal to remove the government of Bashar Al-Assad, and that the loyalists are resisting that same goal.Majd alshoufi (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

And the Kurds and ISIL each want to form their own governments. Also, not every revolution is a civil war - see Egypt, or for a more classic example the Glorious Revolution which featured a bloodless invasion of sorts. ansh666 21:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It is not a "revolutionary war" since there has been no revolution. Assad still controls the parts of Syria that contain 65% of the population. ISIL and friends mostly control desert. FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

again, I'd like to redraw attention to the main deciding factor on naming a revolution, namely, the DECLARED GOALS of the fighting parties, the main opposition forces all agree that their goal is to REMOVE the government of Bashar Al-Assad, and Assad's loyalists all agree that their goal is to DEFEND that same government. Furthermore, if you want to take the international respected media into account, IT IS BEING CALLED A REVOLUTION by several prominent media agencies. .Majd alshoufi (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Most sources just call it he "Syrian war" or "war in Syria". Civil war is less biased than "revolutionary war". FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

References

the map is not correct

there is no rebel presence in Latakia governorate, as shown on the map

207.35.219.34 (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Houthis

Hello, I've been fact-checking the claim that the Yemeni Houthis are fighting in Syria. All the web sources claiming that the fight or fought in Syria, including the one given, seem to be based on this 2013 article, where the information is credited to "a (Yemeni) official source, speaking on condition of anonymity". I think this is not a reliable enough encyclopedic source and that, until better sources show up, we should delete the claim in the infobox as well as the "See also : Yemeni civil war" because the two are not directly related. Yet, personally I know nothing about the Houthis, does anyone here know more ? (you can talk with me on wp:fr)--GrandEscogriffe (talk) 20:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Also, when this point is settled would someone kindly explain me how to edit the infobox ? Thank you

The infobox is edited from Template:Syrian Civil War infobox. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Israel admits to aid rebels

Israel should be in the "non-lethal aid" column: "Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Monday that Israel has been providing aid to Syrian rebels, thus keeping the Druze in Syria out of immediate danger. Israeli officials have previously balked at confirming on the record that the country has been helping forces that are fighting to overthrow Syrian President Bashar"[6] It is not even controversial by now, yet some editors refuse to add it due to some outdated "consensus"[7] based on old sources from back when Israel still denied they were helping the rebels, and on the conclusion that bombing Syrian forces did not make them part of the civil war (which is irrelevant to the non-lethal aid). Facts have changed, so that "consensus" is utterly irrelevant now. Now we even have North Korea as a "supporter", fer Chrissake, yet Netanyahu's hands are all over the place. FunkMonk (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yaalon said humanitarian assistance to Syrian rebels. This is not new - we don't list humanitarian assistance in the war infobox.GreyShark (dibra) 04:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes we do; that's what the "non-lethal aid" column is for. Israel is only supporting Syrian rebels, not army soldiers or Hezbollah members, so the tired "humanitarian" argument doesn't hold up either. You can't really move the goal post on this one. In any case, if you think North Korea has had more to do with this war than Israel, you may not have been following the mainstream news. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It says in the template DO NOT ADD COUNTRIES PROVIDING NON-LETHAL SUPPORT. THIS WAS AGREED UPON AT THE TALK PAGE.GreyShark (dibra) 06:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Once a month or so there is a regular procedure with you or seldom another editor raising this issue, but failing to gain consensus. If you have more questions - visit talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel.GreyShark (dibra) 06:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox columns

Since infoboxes can now apparently have 5 columns (see Wars of the Three Kingdoms), should the columns be revised to 1.) The Syrian govt., 2.) The Free Syrian Army & allies, 3.) ISIS, 4.) The other Islamists & 5.) The Kurds, w/the foreign allies of each faction placed in the relevant columns? Unsigned comment by Blaylockjam10 at 10:13, 11 July 2015

• Why should the FSA be separate from the non-IS Islamist groups that it clearly works with? FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with FunkMonk. This was previously discussed and rejected. The FSA and the likes of Nusra may not be best friends, and there have been incidents of infighting, but they've cooperated more often than not, and there's a significant "grey area" of overlap between the Islamist rebels and the more secular/pro-Western rebels. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
• I can't see a reason to separate groups that cooperate. Its hard enough to keep updated. Legacypac (talk) 09:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

On the infobox, now foreign support is called "non.-combat aid", so Israel should definitely be included under FSA and friends. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Israel has now been added, with this source.[8] FunkMonk (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

FunkMonk - you are seriously pushing it, huh?GreyShark (dibra) 18:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Pushing what? Are you saying the Israeli government is lying? Please, don't be more pro-Israeli than the Israelis themselves. The column is called "non-lethal aid". The Israeli themselves have confirmed they provide this to Syrian rebels, and so have countless other notable sources. Your argument about former consensus is utterly irrelevant now that the Israelis have admitted it themselves. Newer sources trump outdated ones. I sense a RFC in the distance... FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Humanitarian aid is not listed under belligerents section. Israel has assisted Syrian population in rebel-held areas since 2012; nothing new. If we list all countries sending humanitarian aid to Syria, we should list half of UN.GreyShark (dibra) 04:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Nope, humanitarian aid to civilians is not the same as specifically supporting one warring party and not others. You don't see Israel treating Syrian army soldiers. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• As long as we're talking about the non-combat column, it really should only be under the opposition column. The sources featured for them only cite non-combat aid being given to the Syrian opposition. The Kurds are getting support from the US-led coalition which consists of many of the same countries, so it's redundant. As for ISIS, they should have their own column for "alleged" backers. Charles Essie (talk) 17:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - @Mikrobølgeovn: your restructure of the infobox messes up the supporting parties; it is completely mess and looks like Libya is supporting the Kurds, US supporting al-Nusra ?!GreyShark (dibra) 18:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• That's what I've been saying! Charles Essie (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus, i reverted to the original structure.GreyShark (dibra) 06:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: I am aware of it, but I was unable to find an alternative way of making the list collapsible. Any other ideas? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It is collapsible in the new version [9], take a look.GreyShark (dibra) 06:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

What do the purple dots mean?

Its not listed on the map what the purple dots indicate. Do they mean a besieged town, or a destroyed one? I think that should be made clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.15.124 (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - purple is completely confusing. It looks like a new force on the map, rather than what the editor putting it meant. Suggest to remove at once.GreyShark (dibra) 08:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Various Academical and Official Resources on Syrian Turkmen Brigades and Statements about PYD and YPG by Turkish Government

Dear Greyshark,
Please read and scroll carefully;
1. The points you are missing about Syrian Turkmen Brigades;
— a. Syrian Turkmen Brigades are a part of Syrian Opposition, just like Free Syrian Army, Sham Legion, etc. as a SEPERATE organization.
References

• • Middle East Strategical Research Center's Academical Document on Syrian Turkmens' Political Movements and Military Structure - Teams of academicians from various ethnic and religious beliefs

— b. Syrian Turkmen Brigades are the military wing of the Syrian Turkmens' official governing body Syrian Turkmen Assembly, just like the Syriac Military of the Syriacs' official governing body Syriac Union Party.
References

• • Syrian Turkmen Assembly and Syrian Turkmen Brigades by Al Jazeera
  • Academical article on the organizational structure of Syrian Turkmen Assembly, Syrian Turkmen Brigades and the Planned Governing Military Council

— c. Syrian Turkmen Brigades fight as a seperate organization in alliance with the Free Syrian Army, not as a part of them. Just like Sham Legion does. And just like Syriac Military fights in alliance with YPG, not as a part of them.
References

• • See again the military structure of Syrian Turkmen and their attacking strategies, allies and opponents
  • Syrian Turkmen Brigades Offensive attacks on Syrian Government with 'help of the allied organization Free Syrian Army'

Conclusion on Part 1: Syrian Turkmen Brigades are a seperate organization and a part of the Syrian Opposition, which fights in alliance with other Opposition forces like the FSA and Sham Legion. And also are supported by Turkish government and with the latest safezone agreements may respectively be so by US government.

2. Turkey is targeting ISIL while not allowing PYD to advance;
Turkey is targetting ISIL. Even though this can sound as helping PYD, Turkey has officially stated that it does not want Kurds to advance several times and are targetting ISIL to create the safezone in northern Syria, that Turkey demanded for so long, not allowing both Kurds and Islamists in the area.
References

• Erdogan says Turkey Is Not Going To Allow Kurdish State In Northern Syria - Zaman
• Turkey States That It Does Not Want Kurdish Advancement in Syria - YahooNews
• Turkish Officials Warn US About Kurdish Advances in Syria, States That It Does Not Want It - Voice of America
• Analysis by Telegraph - 'Even though the airstrikes can sound beneficial for Kurds, instead, Turkey doesn't want Kurds to advance and doing the airstrikes in order to create the safezone it demanded for long' - Telegraph

References on Safezone For You to Understand Why Turkey Doesn't Want Both IS and PYD Better

• US-Turkey deal to create de facto safe zone in Syria free of IS and other military organizations, a safe area for displaced Turkmen and Arabs
• NYT
• Another point of view, Facing ethnic cleansing by PYD, Turkmens Welcome Safe Zone Plan
• US Confirms: Turkmens Will Be Placed In the Safezone that Turkey-US have agreed upon - Please be careful on this resource: Mutabakatımızda PYD gibi kendi gündemi olan gruplara destek söz konusu değildir. means "In our agreement, support of military organizations who have their own seperate aims like PYD won't happen." And also this sentence; Suriye’nin kuzeyinde, Türkiye sınırının yarısından fazlasını ele geçiren PYD’nin bu bölgede de etkili olmasını istemediğini belirtti. means "Al Jazeera's high ranked US and Turkish sources have confirmed that PYD which occupied the half of northern Syrian border will not be allowed into this area".

Conclusion on Part 2; Turkey is a part of the coalition "against ISIL", not "supporting Kurdish forces", instead aiming moderate rebels like Turkmens and allied Arabic rebels and also displaced Turkmen and Arabs to be given access and possibly the control to the safezone. If you want to add Turkey under the coalition row within the infobox. That must not be under the Kurdish row, but the Opposition row (especially Syrian Turkmen Brigades and their allies).

So, all the information I submit are resourced variously, including both academical papers and latest news from over the world. Read this entry and from now on, please do not delete the resourced information and change it towards what you believe or want.

Thank you in advance for your understanding. Have a nice day. Berkaysnklf (talk), 11 August 2015, 13:26 (UTC)

Thank you for finally going to talk page, however per WP:BRD you first have to gain consensus for your changes and only then to implement and not vice-versa. Furthermore, i wasn't aware that Syrian Turkmen have established a governing body of their own and operate separately from FSA - this might be something new if true. TO my best knowledge, Syrian Turkmen have operated within the existing opposition. Let me check your sources. If indeed it is as you say, we may indeed change the infobox. Meanwhile, i strongly suggest you to self-revert and avoid edit-warring.GreyShark (dibra) 13:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, they WERE scatteredly a part of FSA in the first years of war until late-2012 and they only had a platform to represent them. Since Turkey, which circles their policy around Syrian Turkmens, has started to take an active place in the battleground, government have on purpose allowed Turkmens to find their governing body and re-organized their army and attached it as the assembly's military wing.

And also, MİT (Turkish National Intelligence Alliance) have called upon 21 Syrian Turkmen commanders from various areas, gathered them in Ankara and met with them for long hours which is another sign that Turkey will make Turkmens gain more positions in the near future. Reference - Sputnik. Also tells about areas that Syrian Turkmen Brigades control and their current offensive towards Latakia and whole border area with Turkey

And as Turkey and USA have agreed upon the safezone, the AJ's American sources have confirmed that the safezone will be in control of Turkmens and some of their allied Arabs and will also be a temporary living area for millions of refugees mostly in Turkey. (I have given you sources for this. Nonetheless they are in Turkish, I'm sure you will understand)

And as a result of this and the statements by government and army officials of Turkey, Turkey joined the coalition against ISIL but for helping Turkmens and their allied Arabs. And besides the official statements, the clearest explanation of this was the immediate bombing of PKK after ISIL, which was commented as Turkey's militarical statement on its disallowance of Kurdish forces in the safezone. So its also vital that Turkey's coalition support should not be under the PKK, Peshmerga, PYD row. Actually, this even sounds funny there. Thanks again. Berkaysnklf (talk) 12 August 2015, 09:27 (UTC)

My friend, most of your sources are Turkish-language and you cannot rely only on them for your claims in English wikipedia, as you cannot expect your arguments are understood and supported. The only English reference of Turkmen brigades is talking about their allegiance to FSA and their numbers are likely not so significant (10,000 in 2013, as part of the FSA, and considering the shrinking of FSA since, the Turkmen Brigades are likely much less numerable now).GreyShark (dibra) 08:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like a more recent source on Turkmen Brigade numbers and relations to FSA and SRCC to decide whether and how to show them in the infobox.GreyShark (dibra) 08:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey sorry I was away from the internet for a few days. Hope you are doing fine.

First, its not my fault if there are not a lot English sources. Tough as you can relate Turkish sources will naturally be more interested in news about Turkmen than the foreigners'. And the Turkish resources I gave you are really various streching from Al Jazeera Turk(neutral), Aksam(neutral), Daily Zaman(anti-gov), Sabah(pro-gov) to local newspapers and so the information I gave is highly reliable. And about the numbers, the latest numbers are in Turkish; I told you MIT gathered Turkmen leaders and Turkmen Assembly is making the Brigades their official wing by also creating a official military council. Sources say "about 13.000 (with about 5.000 had at least one week military training), fighting in Turkmen inhabited areas will eventually rise to above 15.00 with these latest moves". So the sources are yes in Turkish but they are variable and therefore highly reliable for anyone as these make the headlines in our country because Turkmens are a really important figure for Turkey.

And thanks for creating the support part in Opposition column, though Turkey is still seen supporting the PKK and allied militias. Please read the resources I've sent you about these. They are mostly in English. Turkey is currently fighting with both PKK and ISIL, and not wanting PYD to advance. Safe-Zone agreement with USA is for kicking ISIL out of region blocking PYD moving into region and making Turkmen forces the controller of their own inhabited regions while also placing the Arab and Turkmen refugees into the zone. So I've changed the infobox which is (as resourced) the most true look. Thanks and have a nice day. Berkaysnklf (talk) 17 August 2015, 00:47 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.57.16.104 (talk)

MIT lorries scandal

What about the 2014 National Intelligence Organisation scandal in Turkey and trying to add that to the support of ISIS and what about the support of Al-Nusra also from Saudi Arabia and Qatar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.64.2 (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The lorries scandal is about Turkey supporting the Opposition and mostly Turkmen fighters, not ISIS. The trucks were also captured near the border crossing to the Turkmen-controlled areas. Berkaysnklf (talk) 20 August 2015, 10:49 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.57.41.227 (talk)

Sunni Arabs decrease !!!

Every week, I read this article, and the percentage of Sunni Arabs, the decrease ! It was 67 and then 56% and now 45% ! I think in the next month will become 30% !!! What is strange is happening here ! 12% Sunni Kurds and Sunni Arabs 45% this means the number of Sunnis, only 57% ! I think that's fraud rate of not less than Sunnis in any way from the 75% --Disappeared (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Turkmen population 10%

Syrian Turkmen (also referred to as Turks in Syria, Syrian Turkoman or Syrian Turks) (Turkish: Suriye Türkleri) are Syrian citizens of Turkish descent. They and their ancestors have lived in present-day Syria since Ottoman times

Syrian Turkmens population 1.500.000-3.500.000 [10]

SYRIAN TURKMENS: POLITICAL MOVEMENTS AND MILITARY STRUCTURE [11]

Syrian Turkmen: In Pursuit of a New Syrian Identity [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.178.47.233 (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

New Deir Ezzor offensive

Various reports, mainly originating from the rebel SOHR and pro-government Al Masdar suggest that ISIL terrorists are having another go at Deir Ezzor and have been attacking the city multiple times in the last weeks. Why hasn't anybody created the article yet? LlegóelBigotee (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thread notification

Can editors familiar with the history of the war take a look at the thread Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#"Allegations of Syrian support" Diagram. Thanks. GregKaye 17:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

SYRIAN FREEDOM?

Said to be of “Anti-Assad protests in Baniyas April 2011”, the picture was taken from a pro-FSA website called ‘Syria-Frames-Of-Freedom’. Given this, and the lack background information, is it safe to include such a questionable image in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.51.168 (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

USA responsible for ISIS

I did not see anything in the background about US involvement on this conflict. Everybody knows that this war was caused because of Bush invasion to Iraq. While the Iraq Army was about 200 thousands solders, in just 2 weeks the US took Saddam out. Of these 200K trained troops, where did they go? OFC, ISIS and rebels in Syria. We need to report the truth - not just brainwashing from the media. Dafranca (talk) 13:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention the US-styled, Free Syrian Army. And yet, despite the spending millions, the US only managed to fully train five 'brave freedom fighters'. Just as well, for are not the FSA and ISIS just two cheeks of the same backside? Are not many of these groups inter-related? Clearly, Saddam was a dictator - but he did help to keep the terror groups in check and help with the War On Terror.

please correct -accuarding and make it according - on the main table at the right - then delete my text here=

Over 7,600,000 internally displaced (accuarding to UNHCR by July 2015) Over 4,000,000 refugees (accuarding to UNHCR by July 2015)[65][66][67]

make it "according" and iff(iff means if and only if) you correct that mistake, then delete my text here - thanx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.220.197 (talk) 07:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Nykterinos (talk) 22:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

How accurate is the map  ?

Khaleejian (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@User:Khaleejian: It appears to me that the map's sources (which are mostly on the history page) are reports from the ground and social media reports from representatives of the groups, as well as other organisations like Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Disagreeing reports are taken into account and consensus is reached (somehow?) over which source to believe. I'd take it with a pinch of salt whether any particular settlement is under what control, but it still gives the general idea of the progress/presence of each group. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

the map is not accurate

The map shows rebels have a portion of Latakia governorate. This is not correct. 45.58.90.108 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a source, I can pass it onto whoever makes the map. Or you can do that. All map changes must be backed up by sources. See: Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map#Rules for editing the map --BurritoBazooka (talk) 21:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

About map accuracy... can someone fix or explain those three purple dots near Damascus? What are they? Thanks. 91.148.94.24 (talk) 10:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Zabadani/Madaya ceasefire. 84.138.69.94 (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Russian military presence?

A variety of news sources now note the supposed presence and participation of Russian troops in the war. How reliable are they? Here's an example: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4696268,00.html How valid are these reports? Ynetnews is the website of Israel's biggest newspaper, and it's been parroted by a whole lot of other papers like the Washington Times, so this can't be a complete fabrication, right?--Nihlus1 (talk) 05:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Originating from the very country that apparently offered its hospitals to Al-Nusra terrorists and is not bothered by their presence... LlegóelBigotee (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ynet has basically just published rumours, which have since been denied by the Russians. Not really of use until independently verified. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This is in mainstream media now (Telegraph, TDB, etc.) Add it to the infobox? I mean you've got video, photos, and Syrian state television confirming it. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 15:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Telegraph is probably one of the least reliable news sources in the West. Anyhow, until we get reliable confirmation, this is just rumours, and does not belong in the infobox. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Russian government has come out and admitted it themselves, this is all legit http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11845635/Vladimir-Putin-confirms-Russian-military-involvement-in-Syrias-civil-war.html UASR (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It says "Russia is providing “serious” training and logistical support to the Syrian army". They're providing support. They're not actually fighting themselves.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It is also the Kremlin, they lied about Russian troops fighting in Crimea and the Donbass (and are still lying about the latter). 97.96.33.181 (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is that evil and lying Mr Putin again. How dare he stand up to the good and honest Uncle Sam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.243.101 (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously guys, Russia will deny everything, that doesn't mean it should influence the facts of wiki here. Russia could say there are no troops in Russia and some people here would start censoring the Russian military pages, because Putin said so.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 17:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The video in question + screen caps of said video. The AFVs are clearly modern Russian vehicles rather than export models, down to the way they paint the numbers on the side, and the soldiers can be heard speaking Russian. http://ruslanleviev.livejournal.com/38649.html--Nihlus1 (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This is the best source I found so far, unfortunately WP:OR: http://ruslanleviev.livejournal.com/38649.html So, basically, Russian marines are there, military air traffic controllers probably too. Also, there's some Russian ground equipment as well as drones but it's still unknown whether Russian soldiers are actually fighting. No hurry here, this will sort out very soon. --Emesik (talk) 12:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

[[13]] - still dictating the line of articles on Ghouta and Syria Emetic and Funk Monk?, what Putinist tossers you are. 92.3.13.255 (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Sockpuppet of Sayerslle; personal attack. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

What do you want to prove with that source? That someone shot a photo of Russian jet and the blue sky in the background is undoubtedly Syrian? Or that someone saw BTR-82 and that's the proof because one has to be native Slav to operate that machinery? --Emesik (talk) 14:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

A lot of ad hominem here. It's been given credibility through the US expressing its concern over the Russian military buildup. --Monochrome_Monitor 15:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC) From the BBC: [14] --Monochrome_Monitor 15:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This article is behind paywall. Anyway, since when "concerns" of US politicians are proof of anything? And yes, nobody denies the buildup of Russian forces, even they acknowledge it. Still we don't have any proof that they play active role in combat. Providing aerial imagery from a reconnaissance drone is still not combat involvement (and we don't even know who exactly operates these drones). Be patient, guys. If the bear enters the game we will hear it loud and clear. --Emesik (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The guys speaking Russian are probably just advisers. Still no proper confirmation. FunkMonk (talk) 02:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"Putinist tossers"? Better a Putin supporter than an arse-creeping lapdog for Uncle Sam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.51.168 (talk) 13:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

|Pictuers of Russian soldiers in syria — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guy1286 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If Russian is in Syrian, and fighting the War On Terror, is it not doing a better job than the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.180.149 (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Moscow confirmed it had "experts" on the ground and Reuters via a Lebanese source said "The Russians are no longer just advisors," one of them said. "The Russians have decided to join the war against terrorism.". [15] --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 17:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

We should hope that Russia has more luck training the Syrian Army, than the US has had training the Free Syrian Army. For all the millions spent, is five fully-trained terror group members money well spent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.180.149 (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If you go to the liveuamap.com about Syria there is a source from today that says that Russia has added 1.700 soldiers to those already present at the Tartus naval base. It also says that 29 Russian jets now are stationed in Latakia airport. We need to update the infobox. ~ Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.141.138 (talk) 22:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

"Russian Casualties" There is information in the info table about 103+ Russian troops being killed in the conflict after a rocket attack – referring to a news article on this site http://antikor.com.ua/articles/61749-tela_103_russkih_voennyh_pogibshih_v_rezuljtate_raketnogo_obstrela_v_sirijskoj_provintsii_rakka ... Yet, the article itself is barely a reprint of an earlier Sep 05 RIA article http://ria.ru/world/20150905/1231510997.html#ixzz3ktw2RJea relating to war in Yemen, with the words Saudi changed to Russian, Yemen changed to Syria and so on. The news article does't itself refer to any primary or secondary source information, and is itself located in the Ukrainian internet segment – which leads me to believe that information in the article is given with parody/disinformation purposes in mind. Hence, info about, the military casualties for Russia needs to be removed from the Syrian Civil War summary table's Losses section. --Lapkonium (talk) 14:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

This, I believe, is an original source in English, and also appears in the comments to the antikor.com.ua article mentioned by the poster above: http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2015/09/05/427815/Yemen I think it's pretty safe to say that the antikor.com.ua article is very dubious at the very least and leaning towards blatant fabrication in this case.77.38.244.219 (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Dubious addition of East Turkestan Islamic Movement to the infobox

@Rajmaan: your addition of East Turkestan Islamic Movement seems poorly sourced, and maybe even completely unrelated. There is no mention of the Uyghur group being a major force in Syria, and you sourced don't seem to support it well. Please note that adding belligerents to the infobox should first get a consensus on the talk page.GreyShark (dibra) 05:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

There are multiple English sources and Arab news articles. According to Syrian and Lebanese media there are 3,500 + of them in Jisr ash-Shugour. English [16][17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25][26] [27][28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] mentioned in passing as "Turkistani" [35][36] [37]

Arabic [38][39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56][57] [58]Rajmaan (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

They are definitely fighting in Syria, whether they deserve to be listed in the Infobox under the heading "Main belligerents" is a lot more questionable I believe. Most of the groups listed have many thousands or even tens of thousands of members and are major players in their areas of operations. By contrast, the Turkistanis seem to operate mostly as shock troops for Nusra offensives, in the same way as Chechen and Uzbek groups do. Gazkthul (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

TIP numbers more than 3,500. That is more than Jabhat Ansar al-Din and Sham Legion which are both mentioned in the infobox.Rajmaan (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The Long War Journal [59] and Jamestown Foundation [60] say approximately 1,000. Gazkthul (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the question is whether TIP is part of the Army of Conquest or not - if it is a part then we shouldn't mention it like other less notable members of the command; if it is not a part of AOC, then 1,000 might be enough to include it independently (on the threshold on notability). Previously Rajmaan did put it under the umbrella of AOC, but i'm not sure whether he meant so or not.GreyShark (dibra) 12:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

TIP in Syria does not operate under official umbrella organizations. They pledged allegiance directly to the Taliban leader- (Mullah Omar's corpse) and Mullah Akhtar. They are not part of Army of Conquest but work with them. TIP is its own branch reporting to its leaders in the AFPAK area and did not originate as a Katibat of Nusra like the Uzbek ones.Rajmaan (talk) 12:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the current link East Turkestan Islamic Party is a misleading addition to the infobox. The only thing i can settle for is a new article for its branch in Syria - perhaps East Turkestan Islamic Party (Syria).GreyShark (dibra) 19:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Change of name to "Syrian War (2010s)" or something?

This war involves many international belligerents, and I don't think it can be classified as a civil war any more. I don't know what kind of war to classify it as, so how about renaming this page to "Syrian War"? --BurritoBazooka (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, and for the record, external players have meddled in practically all civil wars in history (for example the Spanish civil war), so that is not a valid argument. FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Technically, Germany and Italy and USSR were never officially involved in the Spanish Civil War. In this case, Russia is officially involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.197.179.182 (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Thanks. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

China

What about Chinese diplomatic support of Assad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SibHunter (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant in a military infobox. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm amazed at how complex our this military infobox is already, can we do something to make it clearer like World War I, World War IWorld War II and Napoleonic Wars? Banak (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agreed. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 08:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

It is an amazingly complex war with many sides and factions and outside forces intervening. WWII was simpler in some ways, with really two big groups of countries fighting each other. Legacypac (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm referring to how broken down each group is. Do we need to list all 10 government-allied militias? Banak (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Belarusian involvement

This article http://charter97.org/en/news/2013/3/18/66726/ claims that Belarus supports Assad in this war because it sold some quantity of weaponry to Syria at any point between 2008 and 2012. Surely it is not enough evidence to place Belarus among the supporters of the government in this conflict? Any chance Belarus can be removed from the list? 93.84.53.68 (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

agreed, that is an odd addition. Lots of countries have sold lots of sides arms in this war. It's business not support. Legacypac (talk) 07:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)