This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
I realize this has been discussed before, but I don't think the current infobox represents the reality of the situation in Syria at all. My analysis is based on the following evidence:
Since there are only 3 columns, that begs the question: what about the Kurds? I don't think there is an open mainstream rebel vs Kurd war going on right now. There probably are hostilities, as there have been since the beginning, but right now it isn't war. So it would be best to put the Kurds in the same column as the rebels, with a line separating the two, and note that there have been hostilities.
The three columns should be: regime, mainstream rebels and Kurds, and IS. I think the "intervention" should be listed underneath the Kurds in the rebel/Kurd section. So that column, probably the middle one, would go: rebels, then underneath them Kurds, and underneath them the Western "intervention." The last section should note that the airstrikes have hit Nusra as well as IS. (The rumors about Ahrar al-Sham being hit are false.
Here is a link to the infobox in case anyone wants to go ahead and edit. I'd like to discuss first though. Jushyosaha604 ( talk) 21:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what are you all talking about, though you are the ones apparently ignoring my arguments. But if y'all think you can simply pop out of nowhere at the same time to disrupt years of heavy discussion about this by bullying and threatening me on my talk page, claiming you have a an "overwhelming consensus" (which I hardly see), then you are clearly in the wrong place. And I also smell something quacky here. You want facts? There you go:
I will not edit war this out and I've always tried to stay away from this particular topic as much as I could, but this kind of behavior (playing nice, while at the same time gaming the system) should not be tolerated. And stop saying "issue closed" or "end of story" because there is no overwhelming consensus here and this is not your living room. Someone should come here as soon as possible and revert this charade because things have gone way too far. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 04:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like to state the following. The Kurds have no place in the column with the opposition because they got their own agenda separate from the rebels. Besides, if we follow the logic on which you moved the Kurds into the opposition column (YPG-FSA alliances against ISIS) than under that same logic the YPG should go into the Assad column as well since there exists an YPG-SAA/NDF alliance against ISIS in Hasakah. Simply ignoring the existing Assad/YPG alliance in Hasakah and pushing for the YPG/opposition alliance in Aleppo is non-neutral. As for ISIS, whether they are in a conflict with everyone is irrelevant because they are considered by everybody to be an anti-Assad group and their conflict with the opposition is still called an inter-rebel conflict. Thus, whether people like it or not, they ARE a rebel group. And that's why we got the separation lines between ISIS and everyone else. And I will remind once again that ISIS was a full-fledged ally of the opposition for a full year before their conflict erupted. EkoGraf ( talk) 18:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
EkoGraf there is no need to resort to WP:PA with false allegations of "POV pushing". And the reference you provided is from August, making it outdated. Finally, the remark about Kurds being "nether pro- or anti-Assad or even pro- or anti-opposition" is patiently ridiculous, amounting to a denial of reality. From a reference helpfully provided above:
→ Asked if they were cooperating with the Assad regime, (Salih) Muslim replied: "No, never. Whoever says this is disrespecting our martyr brothers. We have been fighting with the regime since the 2004 Kurdish uprising. We have nothing in common with them. They don’t recognize Kurdish identity." - Al-Monitor (October 29, 2013). Nulla Taciti ( talk) 22:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I propose we have 4 boxes. Alhanuty ( talk) 01:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
In section 2.1 (Protests etc.,Jan–Jul2011), one or several editors have added, that:
Claim (1) is incorrect: Assad certainly mentioned conspirators and foreign powers but not ‘terrorist conspiracy’. Claims (2) and (3) come from mr. Bassam Barabandi, who has served between approximately 2007 and unknown date as a Syrian diplomate, perhaps also on Embassy of Syria, Washington, D.C., and in July 2014 shared “his thoughts” and “insights” with US officials and a website called Atlantic Council in this article. My problem is:
This source clearly says that Israel has been arming opposition since they wrestled control over the border areas from the govt army. Before I add Israel to the supporters section in the infobox, I'd like to ask how big flame war will I cause over here? -- Emesik ( talk) 21:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
'Daniel Levy director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).
"Israel is trying not to have to prioritise which threat takes primacy over the other in the region in general. There’s Iran, the Palestinians, Hamas, the Iranian axis, ISIS and other extreme groups in Sinai and the Golan – one of these groups may assume the most attention at any given moment," he added.
According to DW News, Israel has hinted it is coordinating directly with Assad's forces but has avoided saying it outright. Marom suggested Israel had been working with the Syrian regime to coordinate air strikes on Quneitra, the newspaper said.
Senior fellow in the Program on Arab Politics at The Washington Institute, Andrew Tabler believes that although "Israel does not want the Assad regime to tactically win, along its frontier it [Israel] prefers [or] knows the Assad regime.” - See more at: middleesasteye Sayerslle ( talk) 23:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This page may be
too long to read and navigate comfortably. (November 2013) |
I moved this cleanup template here because it is prominent and distracting without being effective. The article has had more than three million page views in the year that this cleanup template has been up. For scale, that's like the entire population of Uruguay. -- Ori.livneh ( talk) 06:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
In the article, Islamic Front falls under the green white black three red stars flag. I have never seen Islamic Front use this flag. Islamic Front is a jihadist group. In my opinion, Islamic Front and FSA should belong to separate columns in the infobox.
http://www.dailysabah.com/mideast/2014/11/03/nusra-attacks-fsa-captures-town-in-idlib
Looks like Nusra needs its own color on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 ( talk) 23:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Nursa does also seem to have a truce with ISIL. I would suggest moving them to the same column as ISIL but with a dividing line between the two groups. 89.168.92.255 ( talk) 20:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Finally a graphic to guide us on the Syrian Civil War. Makes my head hurt, but a great guide on who is fighting or supporting who. Legacypac ( talk) 03:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
[After a long discussion which led to some changes in the Infobox (see Talk:Syrian Civil War#Infobox very misleading), someone still saw a problem, this time concerning Al-Nusra. I take the liberty to replace that new discussion to this new section:]
al-Nusra was fighting IS, but I heard they came to a truce. I'm no expert in this so I am going to have to look this up. Supersaiyen312 ( talk) 05:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm no experts yet on this neither. If FunkMonk has information on supporters of IslamicState, I'd be grateful if he would take the trouble to indeed expose that elephant in the room. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 16:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
{ http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/joshua-landis-robert-ford-discuss-syria-wilson-center-event/ This chart] shows Nusra in direct or indirect conflict with everyone but AQ Core. It shows no one supporting (even alleged) ISIL except maybe Assad. Legacypac ( talk) 03:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The Kurds have taken a defensive position, fighting anyone that tries to control their "homeland" including the regime. FSA and other Opposition is of course not that united making it hard to align them, but at the moment FSA and the Kurds are involved in the Siege of Kobane. Legacypac ( talk) 20:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the coalition air forces would rather need to be in the Kurdish column rather than the opposition column. Especially since there is some evidence the Kurds are coordinating with them, while the rebels have even complained of no coordination between them and the coalition. Also, most of the recent strikes were in support of the Kurds at Kobane. EkoGraf ( talk) 16:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
We should have the Intervention span over the Opposition and Kurds column, just like we had to do before there were four columns. Soffredo 22:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Because of user Greyshark going around to a variety of articles and forcing his map/pov into articles through edit warring without gathering any consensus or support, I went back to one of the old discussions to take a look and noticed that at the bottom here: [16] that user Greyshark had said that "Oppose to suggestion - 5 users (Greyshark, Kudzu, FT, Spesh, Legacy)" But in the discussion we can see that FutureTrillionaire says: "IMO, the Golan Heights should be stripped, not colored. However, ultimately, it really doesn't make much of a difference.", which is not an oppose vote against Syrian civil war 2.png and its text "(Under Israeli occupation)" and user Kudzu says: "I don't agree with considering Israel a belligerent, if that's the proposal on the table. But I think it's appropriate to shade the map to indicate that Israel controls a part of what is de jure Syria." which is exactly what Syrian civil war 2.png and the text "(under Israeli occupation)" does.
We can also see that User Vanamonde93 said: "The map is supposed to accurately represent the military situation in Syria; ergo, any map which did not delineate Israeli held territory would be indulging in a factual inaccuracy. How the occupation is shown, I am not particular about; stripes, shades, stars, polka dots, not bothered. But presenting Israeli controlled territory as Syrian government controlled seems out of the question to me.", which is support for Syrian civil war 2.png. But Greyshark did not mention him at all in the "support votes". Therefore user Greyshark has severely misrepresented the outcome of the discussion and the support or neutral votes are even greater then what he claimed. And those who "opposed" is even smaller then he claimed. I'm seriously considering an enforcement request against user Greyshark if he continues with this behavior. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 03:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Another editor took the Arab Countries bombing ISIL out of the infobox wth "Simplifying; other coalition partners have not contributed nearly as much as the militant groups pro-gov and rebel that have been left out" I believe this is not an appropriate change to a widely agreed inclusion (never seen anyone question it till now) and have reverted the change. If there are other Govt or Opposition groups that should be included in the box, there is lots of space to include them. Legacypac ( talk) 04:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The casualties are as follows:
Civilians: 63072 civilians, including 10377 children and 6603 women.
Rebel and Islamic fighters: 34838
Defected soldiers and officers: 2486
full report here Lindi29 ( talk) 22:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Already updated it. EkoGraf ( talk) 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
How is the conflict in Syria still a civil war ?
1. Involvement of foreign Jihadi fighters from all over the world. This is especially true for the IS.
2. Involvement of the United States and her allies. The US and her allies has been bombing the Islamic State part of Syria since 22 september.
3. Involvement of Israel. Israel has bombed the government forces of Syria so many times since the beginning of the conflict that I have lost count.
4. Involvement of the Hezbollah a foreign militia that has played a very crucial role on the government side.
5. Involvement of Iran in the conflict either indirectly or even directly on the side of the Syrian Government.
6. Involvement of the forces from Iraqi Kurdistan the Peshmerga's in the fighting between Syria's Kurds and the Islamic State.
7. Foreign countries in the region and beyond have been involved from the beginning in training, arming and funding the rebels in Syria.
8. And most importantly. The wars in Iraq and Syria has now become one single conflict.
More and more outside parties are getting involved into this conflict almost by the day!
Perhabs change the name of the article into the "Syrian War". Like the article the Bosnian War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.174.12 ( talk) 16:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
New reports. here Lindi29 ( talk) 23:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Despite hard evidence, that the number bloodly killings by ISIS are growing, Wikipedia continues with the fiction that the Syrian government are mosty to blame for the outrages. For the Syrian Civil War section continues to paint the Syrian government in a very bad light. And, despite news of a changing picture of events within Syria, why does Wikipedia refuse to report this conflict in a fair and balanced way? When will you stop pushing what at times appears to be a US point of view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.187.159 ( talk) 20:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
In the “International reaction” section, Wikipedia has a picture of Esther Brimmer (U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs) addressing a Human Rights Council Debate on Syria 28, February 2012. And yet, to better reflect a range of International Reactions, might not Wikipedia consider deleting reference to Esther Brimmer?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.219.89 ( talk) 21:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
An apparent POV request... Legacypac ( talk) 22:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Since, pointing out if something is biased is helpful, is it not reasonable to ask whether the international reaction section should contained a section on, well - International Reactions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.213.110 ( talk) 20:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Syrian Turkmen, killed in the civil war by ISID
[18],
Syrian Turkmen Brigades — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.178.58.11 (
talk) 20:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Al-Qaeda in Syria targets Turkmen minority [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 ( talk) 08:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Until recently the file at commons:File:SyrianCivilWarMap.png showed Syria as red. This has now been changed to Black which is a Salafist, Islamist ISIL colour. I do not see this as a neutral presentation of colouration.
GregKaye ✍♪ 05:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Please also update the discription, which still says syria is black. Thanks in advance! Andylee Sato — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.59.178 ( talk) 12:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I dont know how could Al-nusra have maneged to inflict losses and gain terrain from the SAA and FSA with only 6,000 men. There is something extrange here. Their numbers are soo small for the terrain and gains made, allas of their big coverage in the news and presence in Idlib, Darra, Aleppo. 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 16:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much confirmed by now. [20] [21] FunkMonk ( talk) 09:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
This map: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template%3ASyrian_Civil_War_infobox&diff=639084171&oldid=639083029#mediaviewer/File:Syrian_civil_war.png already has color for the Israeli-occupied portion of the Golan Heights. So I did not "reinsert Israel into a conflict they are not part of" The map already shows Israel is occupying GH. I only fixed the text under it describing the map. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 20:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
This edition brought Israel out of Infobox. As it has already been discussed here, I want to start a new discussion on the subject to detect the validity of this issue and if the user can be punished (not, User:FunkMonk?) 201.17.211.239 ( talk) 13:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Why is Abu Omar al-Shishani listed as killed in action here but not in his biography page? Did multiple sources confirm that the guy is actually dead? Coltsfan ( talk) 12:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Interesting clarification: http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/year-end-predictions-analysis-joshua-landis-28-december-2014/ "The Assad government rules 45% of the land and perhaps 65% of the population, give or take. ISIS rules 35%, but controls less than 3 million people. Kurds may control about 8% or 9% of Syria and Nusra another 5%. This leaves the hundreds of additional militias controlling the remaining 5%" FunkMonk ( talk) 01:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
http://news.antiwar.com/2015/01/04/islamic-front-rebels-seize-damascus-suburb-from-moderate-rivals/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 ( talk) 20:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for posting. That site is not a RS we should include in the article though. Legacypac ( talk) 21:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi!
I'm inviting editors to participate in the discussion to move the article 'Syrian Kurdistan' to 'Rojava'. My rationale is: This article is about a region governed by the PYD, which calls the area Rojava. Foreign press also uses this term, for example [23] (BBC) [24] (Guardian) [25] (Independent) [26] (VICE). Other examples on Wikipedia such as Kosovo (not South Serbia), Catalonia (not Catalonian Spain) or Scotland (not Scottish United Kingdom) indicate this article should be called Rojava as per convention. Thanks Genjix ( talk) 19:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Would someone kindly take part in the discussion here regarding whether the existence of Turkish intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as a stand-alone article or its title are accurate or not. Regards. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 11:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/syria-s-civil-war-linked-partly-to-drought-global-warming-study-1.2260537 NorthernThunder ( talk) 23:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I just fixed an incident of vandalism on this page, (see article history, approximately 5:50 PM PDT 3/15/15), so I would suggest some form of protection. As the subject of this article is deeply embedded in international politics and world religion, it will be a prime target for such defacing in the future. 76.167.74.107 ( talk) 00:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there something like an archive of all the maps that have been used here to illustrate the military situation? Would like to make an animation showing the military development from the start of the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.82.186 ( talk) 09:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I noticed, that this article doesnt have any info about event of Syrian Civil War since October 2014. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebell44 ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Does that Libya fall into the hands of Chechen or Islamic state or al Qaeda, it will map the conflict that will have to be renamed as the last Arab fitna? 191.185.204.11 ( talk) 12:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
1- If Chechens and the class of Al Qaeda or even the class of the Islamic state took power in Libya, will have to extend the conflict map?
2- In case of extension of the conflict map, we have to re-catalog the war with the nth fitna? 191.185.215.35 ( talk) 22:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Syrian Turks (Turks in Syria, Syrian Turkoman or Syrian Turkmen) (Turkish: Suriye Türkleri) are Syrian citizens of Turkish descent, who have been living in the Syrian provinces of the Ottoman Empire before its dissolution and continue to live in the modern country of syria
During the Syrian Civil War, the Turkmen population of Syria were mainly involved in military actions against the Syrian Government Forces and have looked at Turkey for support and protection.
Syrian Turks 750.000-1.500.000-3.500.000 populations [27]
Syrian Turkmen Brigades [28], Syrian Turks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.110.159.169 ( talk) 22:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know the usual policy in Wikipedia-en, but I feel a bit strange to promote in a real article a fake image of a logo. What do you think about it. Loreleil ( talk) 06:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Real logo is : File:Hezbollah_Flag.jpg which is "protected". Loreleil ( talk) 06:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
An interview with Bashar al-Assad was published by Expressen, one of Sweden’s biggest newspapers, today. Should it be mention in the article? (After the 1 minute Swedish intro, the interview is in English.) Link to the interview Erlbaeko ( talk) 08:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
I realize this has been discussed before, but I don't think the current infobox represents the reality of the situation in Syria at all. My analysis is based on the following evidence:
Since there are only 3 columns, that begs the question: what about the Kurds? I don't think there is an open mainstream rebel vs Kurd war going on right now. There probably are hostilities, as there have been since the beginning, but right now it isn't war. So it would be best to put the Kurds in the same column as the rebels, with a line separating the two, and note that there have been hostilities.
The three columns should be: regime, mainstream rebels and Kurds, and IS. I think the "intervention" should be listed underneath the Kurds in the rebel/Kurd section. So that column, probably the middle one, would go: rebels, then underneath them Kurds, and underneath them the Western "intervention." The last section should note that the airstrikes have hit Nusra as well as IS. (The rumors about Ahrar al-Sham being hit are false.
Here is a link to the infobox in case anyone wants to go ahead and edit. I'd like to discuss first though. Jushyosaha604 ( talk) 21:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know what are you all talking about, though you are the ones apparently ignoring my arguments. But if y'all think you can simply pop out of nowhere at the same time to disrupt years of heavy discussion about this by bullying and threatening me on my talk page, claiming you have a an "overwhelming consensus" (which I hardly see), then you are clearly in the wrong place. And I also smell something quacky here. You want facts? There you go:
I will not edit war this out and I've always tried to stay away from this particular topic as much as I could, but this kind of behavior (playing nice, while at the same time gaming the system) should not be tolerated. And stop saying "issue closed" or "end of story" because there is no overwhelming consensus here and this is not your living room. Someone should come here as soon as possible and revert this charade because things have gone way too far. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 04:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like to state the following. The Kurds have no place in the column with the opposition because they got their own agenda separate from the rebels. Besides, if we follow the logic on which you moved the Kurds into the opposition column (YPG-FSA alliances against ISIS) than under that same logic the YPG should go into the Assad column as well since there exists an YPG-SAA/NDF alliance against ISIS in Hasakah. Simply ignoring the existing Assad/YPG alliance in Hasakah and pushing for the YPG/opposition alliance in Aleppo is non-neutral. As for ISIS, whether they are in a conflict with everyone is irrelevant because they are considered by everybody to be an anti-Assad group and their conflict with the opposition is still called an inter-rebel conflict. Thus, whether people like it or not, they ARE a rebel group. And that's why we got the separation lines between ISIS and everyone else. And I will remind once again that ISIS was a full-fledged ally of the opposition for a full year before their conflict erupted. EkoGraf ( talk) 18:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
EkoGraf there is no need to resort to WP:PA with false allegations of "POV pushing". And the reference you provided is from August, making it outdated. Finally, the remark about Kurds being "nether pro- or anti-Assad or even pro- or anti-opposition" is patiently ridiculous, amounting to a denial of reality. From a reference helpfully provided above:
→ Asked if they were cooperating with the Assad regime, (Salih) Muslim replied: "No, never. Whoever says this is disrespecting our martyr brothers. We have been fighting with the regime since the 2004 Kurdish uprising. We have nothing in common with them. They don’t recognize Kurdish identity." - Al-Monitor (October 29, 2013). Nulla Taciti ( talk) 22:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I propose we have 4 boxes. Alhanuty ( talk) 01:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
In section 2.1 (Protests etc.,Jan–Jul2011), one or several editors have added, that:
Claim (1) is incorrect: Assad certainly mentioned conspirators and foreign powers but not ‘terrorist conspiracy’. Claims (2) and (3) come from mr. Bassam Barabandi, who has served between approximately 2007 and unknown date as a Syrian diplomate, perhaps also on Embassy of Syria, Washington, D.C., and in July 2014 shared “his thoughts” and “insights” with US officials and a website called Atlantic Council in this article. My problem is:
This source clearly says that Israel has been arming opposition since they wrestled control over the border areas from the govt army. Before I add Israel to the supporters section in the infobox, I'd like to ask how big flame war will I cause over here? -- Emesik ( talk) 21:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
'Daniel Levy director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).
"Israel is trying not to have to prioritise which threat takes primacy over the other in the region in general. There’s Iran, the Palestinians, Hamas, the Iranian axis, ISIS and other extreme groups in Sinai and the Golan – one of these groups may assume the most attention at any given moment," he added.
According to DW News, Israel has hinted it is coordinating directly with Assad's forces but has avoided saying it outright. Marom suggested Israel had been working with the Syrian regime to coordinate air strikes on Quneitra, the newspaper said.
Senior fellow in the Program on Arab Politics at The Washington Institute, Andrew Tabler believes that although "Israel does not want the Assad regime to tactically win, along its frontier it [Israel] prefers [or] knows the Assad regime.” - See more at: middleesasteye Sayerslle ( talk) 23:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This page may be
too long to read and navigate comfortably. (November 2013) |
I moved this cleanup template here because it is prominent and distracting without being effective. The article has had more than three million page views in the year that this cleanup template has been up. For scale, that's like the entire population of Uruguay. -- Ori.livneh ( talk) 06:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
In the article, Islamic Front falls under the green white black three red stars flag. I have never seen Islamic Front use this flag. Islamic Front is a jihadist group. In my opinion, Islamic Front and FSA should belong to separate columns in the infobox.
http://www.dailysabah.com/mideast/2014/11/03/nusra-attacks-fsa-captures-town-in-idlib
Looks like Nusra needs its own color on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 ( talk) 23:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Nursa does also seem to have a truce with ISIL. I would suggest moving them to the same column as ISIL but with a dividing line between the two groups. 89.168.92.255 ( talk) 20:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Finally a graphic to guide us on the Syrian Civil War. Makes my head hurt, but a great guide on who is fighting or supporting who. Legacypac ( talk) 03:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
[After a long discussion which led to some changes in the Infobox (see Talk:Syrian Civil War#Infobox very misleading), someone still saw a problem, this time concerning Al-Nusra. I take the liberty to replace that new discussion to this new section:]
al-Nusra was fighting IS, but I heard they came to a truce. I'm no expert in this so I am going to have to look this up. Supersaiyen312 ( talk) 05:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm no experts yet on this neither. If FunkMonk has information on supporters of IslamicState, I'd be grateful if he would take the trouble to indeed expose that elephant in the room. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 16:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
{ http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/joshua-landis-robert-ford-discuss-syria-wilson-center-event/ This chart] shows Nusra in direct or indirect conflict with everyone but AQ Core. It shows no one supporting (even alleged) ISIL except maybe Assad. Legacypac ( talk) 03:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The Kurds have taken a defensive position, fighting anyone that tries to control their "homeland" including the regime. FSA and other Opposition is of course not that united making it hard to align them, but at the moment FSA and the Kurds are involved in the Siege of Kobane. Legacypac ( talk) 20:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the coalition air forces would rather need to be in the Kurdish column rather than the opposition column. Especially since there is some evidence the Kurds are coordinating with them, while the rebels have even complained of no coordination between them and the coalition. Also, most of the recent strikes were in support of the Kurds at Kobane. EkoGraf ( talk) 16:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
We should have the Intervention span over the Opposition and Kurds column, just like we had to do before there were four columns. Soffredo 22:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Because of user Greyshark going around to a variety of articles and forcing his map/pov into articles through edit warring without gathering any consensus or support, I went back to one of the old discussions to take a look and noticed that at the bottom here: [16] that user Greyshark had said that "Oppose to suggestion - 5 users (Greyshark, Kudzu, FT, Spesh, Legacy)" But in the discussion we can see that FutureTrillionaire says: "IMO, the Golan Heights should be stripped, not colored. However, ultimately, it really doesn't make much of a difference.", which is not an oppose vote against Syrian civil war 2.png and its text "(Under Israeli occupation)" and user Kudzu says: "I don't agree with considering Israel a belligerent, if that's the proposal on the table. But I think it's appropriate to shade the map to indicate that Israel controls a part of what is de jure Syria." which is exactly what Syrian civil war 2.png and the text "(under Israeli occupation)" does.
We can also see that User Vanamonde93 said: "The map is supposed to accurately represent the military situation in Syria; ergo, any map which did not delineate Israeli held territory would be indulging in a factual inaccuracy. How the occupation is shown, I am not particular about; stripes, shades, stars, polka dots, not bothered. But presenting Israeli controlled territory as Syrian government controlled seems out of the question to me.", which is support for Syrian civil war 2.png. But Greyshark did not mention him at all in the "support votes". Therefore user Greyshark has severely misrepresented the outcome of the discussion and the support or neutral votes are even greater then what he claimed. And those who "opposed" is even smaller then he claimed. I'm seriously considering an enforcement request against user Greyshark if he continues with this behavior. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 03:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Another editor took the Arab Countries bombing ISIL out of the infobox wth "Simplifying; other coalition partners have not contributed nearly as much as the militant groups pro-gov and rebel that have been left out" I believe this is not an appropriate change to a widely agreed inclusion (never seen anyone question it till now) and have reverted the change. If there are other Govt or Opposition groups that should be included in the box, there is lots of space to include them. Legacypac ( talk) 04:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The casualties are as follows:
Civilians: 63072 civilians, including 10377 children and 6603 women.
Rebel and Islamic fighters: 34838
Defected soldiers and officers: 2486
full report here Lindi29 ( talk) 22:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Already updated it. EkoGraf ( talk) 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
How is the conflict in Syria still a civil war ?
1. Involvement of foreign Jihadi fighters from all over the world. This is especially true for the IS.
2. Involvement of the United States and her allies. The US and her allies has been bombing the Islamic State part of Syria since 22 september.
3. Involvement of Israel. Israel has bombed the government forces of Syria so many times since the beginning of the conflict that I have lost count.
4. Involvement of the Hezbollah a foreign militia that has played a very crucial role on the government side.
5. Involvement of Iran in the conflict either indirectly or even directly on the side of the Syrian Government.
6. Involvement of the forces from Iraqi Kurdistan the Peshmerga's in the fighting between Syria's Kurds and the Islamic State.
7. Foreign countries in the region and beyond have been involved from the beginning in training, arming and funding the rebels in Syria.
8. And most importantly. The wars in Iraq and Syria has now become one single conflict.
More and more outside parties are getting involved into this conflict almost by the day!
Perhabs change the name of the article into the "Syrian War". Like the article the Bosnian War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.174.12 ( talk) 16:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
New reports. here Lindi29 ( talk) 23:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Despite hard evidence, that the number bloodly killings by ISIS are growing, Wikipedia continues with the fiction that the Syrian government are mosty to blame for the outrages. For the Syrian Civil War section continues to paint the Syrian government in a very bad light. And, despite news of a changing picture of events within Syria, why does Wikipedia refuse to report this conflict in a fair and balanced way? When will you stop pushing what at times appears to be a US point of view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.187.159 ( talk) 20:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
In the “International reaction” section, Wikipedia has a picture of Esther Brimmer (U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs) addressing a Human Rights Council Debate on Syria 28, February 2012. And yet, to better reflect a range of International Reactions, might not Wikipedia consider deleting reference to Esther Brimmer?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.219.89 ( talk) 21:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
An apparent POV request... Legacypac ( talk) 22:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Since, pointing out if something is biased is helpful, is it not reasonable to ask whether the international reaction section should contained a section on, well - International Reactions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.213.110 ( talk) 20:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Syrian Turkmen, killed in the civil war by ISID
[18],
Syrian Turkmen Brigades — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
78.178.58.11 (
talk) 20:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Al-Qaeda in Syria targets Turkmen minority [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 ( talk) 08:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Until recently the file at commons:File:SyrianCivilWarMap.png showed Syria as red. This has now been changed to Black which is a Salafist, Islamist ISIL colour. I do not see this as a neutral presentation of colouration.
GregKaye ✍♪ 05:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Please also update the discription, which still says syria is black. Thanks in advance! Andylee Sato — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.59.178 ( talk) 12:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I dont know how could Al-nusra have maneged to inflict losses and gain terrain from the SAA and FSA with only 6,000 men. There is something extrange here. Their numbers are soo small for the terrain and gains made, allas of their big coverage in the news and presence in Idlib, Darra, Aleppo. 200.48.214.19 ( talk) 16:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much confirmed by now. [20] [21] FunkMonk ( talk) 09:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
This map: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template%3ASyrian_Civil_War_infobox&diff=639084171&oldid=639083029#mediaviewer/File:Syrian_civil_war.png already has color for the Israeli-occupied portion of the Golan Heights. So I did not "reinsert Israel into a conflict they are not part of" The map already shows Israel is occupying GH. I only fixed the text under it describing the map. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 20:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
This edition brought Israel out of Infobox. As it has already been discussed here, I want to start a new discussion on the subject to detect the validity of this issue and if the user can be punished (not, User:FunkMonk?) 201.17.211.239 ( talk) 13:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Why is Abu Omar al-Shishani listed as killed in action here but not in his biography page? Did multiple sources confirm that the guy is actually dead? Coltsfan ( talk) 12:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Interesting clarification: http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/year-end-predictions-analysis-joshua-landis-28-december-2014/ "The Assad government rules 45% of the land and perhaps 65% of the population, give or take. ISIS rules 35%, but controls less than 3 million people. Kurds may control about 8% or 9% of Syria and Nusra another 5%. This leaves the hundreds of additional militias controlling the remaining 5%" FunkMonk ( talk) 01:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
http://news.antiwar.com/2015/01/04/islamic-front-rebels-seize-damascus-suburb-from-moderate-rivals/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 ( talk) 20:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for posting. That site is not a RS we should include in the article though. Legacypac ( talk) 21:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi!
I'm inviting editors to participate in the discussion to move the article 'Syrian Kurdistan' to 'Rojava'. My rationale is: This article is about a region governed by the PYD, which calls the area Rojava. Foreign press also uses this term, for example [23] (BBC) [24] (Guardian) [25] (Independent) [26] (VICE). Other examples on Wikipedia such as Kosovo (not South Serbia), Catalonia (not Catalonian Spain) or Scotland (not Scottish United Kingdom) indicate this article should be called Rojava as per convention. Thanks Genjix ( talk) 19:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Would someone kindly take part in the discussion here regarding whether the existence of Turkish intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as a stand-alone article or its title are accurate or not. Regards. Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 11:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/syria-s-civil-war-linked-partly-to-drought-global-warming-study-1.2260537 NorthernThunder ( talk) 23:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I just fixed an incident of vandalism on this page, (see article history, approximately 5:50 PM PDT 3/15/15), so I would suggest some form of protection. As the subject of this article is deeply embedded in international politics and world religion, it will be a prime target for such defacing in the future. 76.167.74.107 ( talk) 00:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Is there something like an archive of all the maps that have been used here to illustrate the military situation? Would like to make an animation showing the military development from the start of the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.82.186 ( talk) 09:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I noticed, that this article doesnt have any info about event of Syrian Civil War since October 2014. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebell44 ( talk • contribs) 20:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Does that Libya fall into the hands of Chechen or Islamic state or al Qaeda, it will map the conflict that will have to be renamed as the last Arab fitna? 191.185.204.11 ( talk) 12:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
1- If Chechens and the class of Al Qaeda or even the class of the Islamic state took power in Libya, will have to extend the conflict map?
2- In case of extension of the conflict map, we have to re-catalog the war with the nth fitna? 191.185.215.35 ( talk) 22:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Syrian Turks (Turks in Syria, Syrian Turkoman or Syrian Turkmen) (Turkish: Suriye Türkleri) are Syrian citizens of Turkish descent, who have been living in the Syrian provinces of the Ottoman Empire before its dissolution and continue to live in the modern country of syria
During the Syrian Civil War, the Turkmen population of Syria were mainly involved in military actions against the Syrian Government Forces and have looked at Turkey for support and protection.
Syrian Turks 750.000-1.500.000-3.500.000 populations [27]
Syrian Turkmen Brigades [28], Syrian Turks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.110.159.169 ( talk) 22:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know the usual policy in Wikipedia-en, but I feel a bit strange to promote in a real article a fake image of a logo. What do you think about it. Loreleil ( talk) 06:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Real logo is : File:Hezbollah_Flag.jpg which is "protected". Loreleil ( talk) 06:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
An interview with Bashar al-Assad was published by Expressen, one of Sweden’s biggest newspapers, today. Should it be mention in the article? (After the 1 minute Swedish intro, the interview is in English.) Link to the interview Erlbaeko ( talk) 08:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)