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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
There is no official confirmation of this. 216.165.209.210 ( talk) 01:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Moscow confirmed it had "experts" on the ground in Syria, its long-time ally in the Middle East. But Russia has declined to comment on the scale and scope of its military presence. Damascus denied Russians were involved in combat, but a Syrian official said the presence of experts had increased in the past year.
Here are a couple of links detailing Cuban involvement on the Syrian government's side: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/16/cuba-is-intervening-in-syria-to-help-russia-it-s-not-the-first-time-havana-s-assisted-moscow.html http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/14/cuban-military-forces-deployed-to-syria-to-operate-russian-tanks-say-sources/
I'd add Cuba to the list of countries that "support" the government, but unfortunately, the data for the war is in one of those infoboxes meaning it can't be edited. BGManofID ( talk) 21:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
When I passed through article, I had feeling its very one-sided, like being pamphlet for one side. Could article deliver more balanced distribution of photos or we are aiming here at one side ? -- PetarM ( talk) 09:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@Everyone @ BlueHypercane761, Rob984, and DuckZz: Hi. There is a second template, at Template:Syrian Civil War map that seems to duplicate the image you are using and updating in your infobox. That other template's image is updated more frequently, so you might want to use it instead of duplicating the work. Even if not, you might want to collaborate with the Wikipedians curating that template and image, if only not to duplicate effort, and not waste time. — Boruch Baum ( talk) 22:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
When I saw that the Houthis were listed in the template as an "allied militia", it sounded strange, so I looked at the reference, and after examining the reference, it seems even more dubious. Because I don't know the criteria used for inclusion in the list, I would like a consensus to remove them from the template. My points in favor are:
— Boruch Baum ( talk) 12:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
It's finally pleasing to see Turkey not occupying the same column with PKK and PYD as Turkey's air force also started military operations against YPG.( Turkish PM: We have concocted 2 operations against YPG and this may be taken further - AlJazeera) I've mentioned it is not plausible to add Turkey to the same column a long time ago in the talk page but me and my resources have been ignored, my edits have been reverted and my entry to the talk page has been literally deleted.
Now, I see the infobox again lacks the Syrian Turkmen Brigades which I had also given numerous resources on topic, both academical papers, strategical analysis, news reports and state speeches. I have checked for why it has been deleted and found no explanation, not a single word. Interprating this with optimist thoughts that the editor might erased it thinking that they had gone inactive; I have added the Syrian Turkmen Brigades again and I'm sharing new and up to date information about them (Like the ones I have shared in August and September were not up to date enough.) Here are two:
Thanks.
Berkaysnklf (
talk)
14:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Does the (so far) paper Alliance of the "Democratic forces" really merit being isted as the main opposition force? Putting large, real, alliances lik the Islamic Front in the back? The organizations listed under it are wrong, as well - far from the entire FSA have joined. Also, who wrote that Nusra is the "main opposition force"? Feels ike Moscow and Pentagon fanboys/employees are working this page. Everyone else have to step up their game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.0.174 ( talk) 10:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Why is France not listed as a supporter of the FSA in the infobox, considering that it was said by Hollande that France has delivered arms to them since 2012? Esn ( talk) 19:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I cut paragraph breaks, reducing the intro to just three paragraphs. Feel free to express your thoughts. -- George Ho ( talk) 07:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
One paragraph was moved deservingly to a section discussing the related subtopic. The intro has an extra paragraph; ideally, no more than four paragraph would be enough to introduce readers to the ongoing civil war. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
"The Syrian Civil War \ is an ongoing international[78] armed conflict taking place in Syria. "
International war is not a civil war. Please fix this obvious semantic lie.
The SDF is not an umbrella group for the Syrian opposition, it is a coalition to fight ISIS in eastern Syria. The PYD leader said the collapse of the Assad regime would be a disaster, and the YPG have fought alongside and received arms from the regime. Just yesterday the SNC accused the PYD of supporting Assad. The Al Sanadid forces in the SDF are supporters of the Syrian regime. Dividing the opposition between the territory controlled by the SDF and the Army of Conquest ignores all the opposition groups outside the east and northwest of the country. I hope this info box can be split back into separate columns for the Kurds and the mainstream Syrian opposition.-- 109.157.229.116 ( talk) 10:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
“Rebels have committed various crimes and have on multiple occasions called for genocide and ethnic cleansing of Christians, Alawites, Shiite, Druze and other minorities” Despite stating such reports of human rights outrages by the rebels, Wikipedia continues to use the statement that the “vast majority of the abuses having been committed by the Syrian government”. If this comment was ever true, latest press and media reports increasing call it into question. So, in light of new information, are Wikipedia ready to reconsider their one-sided statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.50.196 ( talk) 12:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
|
do they saing what they saing?? [1]} or somebody hacked the NYT website? All the time was palid that US will fight against ISIS not will help ISIS faight . This support fo IS was put in UN by Natanyhoo exactly a year ago when he say to defeat ISIS is to win the battle and lose the war
How Naive are those explanation that Obama sending those 50 comandos to find those 5 modrate rebsls US Army trained for 500 milion in the last 5 years.. [2] ?
Please update the article if you know what is lie what is not. 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 ( talk) 03:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The article says that, "While the vast majority of war crimes and other gross violations continue to be committed by government forces", but for some reason leaves out, "our research also points to an escalation in abuses by armed opposition groups". To avoid charge of being a vehicle for FSA propaganda, should not Wikipedia reproduce the missing part of the quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.230.240 ( talk) 15:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Harper is no longer Prime Minister of Canada. It should be updated to Justin Trudeau — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.3.149 ( talk) 11:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Done Jp16103 ( talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Syrian Civil War → War in Syria – There are at least three international interventions in Syria, why we call it a civil war? Jenda H. ( talk) 09:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
References
Wesley Clark talks about it. 178.148.10.191 ( talk) 14:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
change required minimum work. We have the word taking already in header
the word 'place' may be used in
Even assuming the list is completely true and valid, still, there is still nothing to suggest that this list of seven countries is relevant to this specific war in Syria. For all the reader knows, war in Syria would be inevitable even if the US never made this list in 2001. Original research is being committed in suggesting that this war has to do with that list, without evidence of that specific fact. Perhaps Clark's list is more relevant in one of these articles:
-- BurritoBazooka ( talk) 01:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Also we cant go anywhere if you will use antysemantic conspiracy theory phrase. The corect term is de conspiracy. The Clark show existing secret conspiracy, as any army conspire , do not forward its plan in open. This should be obvious and such empty argument discounted from any serious dispute. Again any army conspire and do not have plan open to public. So confirm you will use semantic or put dictionary of your antisemantic terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 03:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Topic being discussed here is very relevant for the Foreign involvement section of this article.. so no need to talk about delegating it to other (maybe also relevant) articles. 178.148.10.191 ( talk) 21:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
this isn't a traditional civil war. this involves transnational and many states. as well as frequent spillovers in neighbouring countries. it should be called "Syrian War (2011-present)" or "War in Syria (2011-present)"-- Stefvh96 ( talk) 01:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Infobox should have Turkey as supported of ISIS, there are undeniable evidences:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/links-between-turkey-isis-now-195700510.html http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/18/turkey-cut-islamic-state-supply-lines-erdogan-isis Dafranca ( talk) 20:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC) http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/19/turkeys-informal-isis-support 179.105.82.13 ( talk) 16:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You received no response, and below you a separate discussion took place about whether Turkey should be listed under support of Kurds, somehow the deccision was made to continue listing Turkey as a Kurdish support. This article like so much of wikipedia when it comes to anything controversial in geopolitics, its essentially laughable and worthless pro-USA propaganda. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar are at the very least NOT in favor of the Kurds, and a strong case can be made to list all 3 states as being more or less with ISIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.52.222 ( talk) 04:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps someone with more knowledge could shed some light on this situation. Currently, the infobox displays the number of Iranian KIA as 146. However, this excludes the approximately 385 Afghan and Pakistani troops who died fighting for the IRGC. How, exactly, should we categorize the Afghan and Pakistani fighters? They appear to be in a similar situation to the French Foreign Legion, and so should count as part of the Iranian military:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/31/world/meast/syria-afghan-fighter/
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/shiite-combat-casualties-show-the-depth-of-irans-involvement-in-syria
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-afghan-shiite-fighters-in-syria
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSkrFNBXAAAxnT6.jpg:large
So? Should the number of Iranian military KIA be listed as 146+ or 531+?- Nihlus1 ( talk) 08:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Infobox should have Turkey as supported of ISIS, there are undeniable evidences:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/links-between-turkey-isis-now-195700510.html http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/18/turkey-cut-islamic-state-supply-lines-erdogan-isis Dafranca ( talk) 20:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC) http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/19/turkeys-informal-isis-support 179.105.82.13 ( talk) 16:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You received no response, and below you a separate discussion took place about whether Turkey should be listed under support of Kurds, somehow the deccision was made to continue listing Turkey as a Kurdish support. This article like so much of wikipedia when it comes to anything controversial in geopolitics, its essentially laughable and worthless pro-USA propaganda. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar are at the very least NOT in favor of the Kurds, and a strong case can be made to list all 3 states as being more or less with ISIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.52.222 ( talk) 04:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Syrian Civil War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Turkey has allies within the listed group of oppositions, including Saudi Arabia. It is a known fact. Mark Van Muur ( talk) 02:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Please read the article and express your opinion, is there any grounds to consider these facts as supporting IS? Thank. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/research-paper-isis-turke_b_6128950.html
Reference link (a) 143 under Course Of Events does not provide specific support for the statement and should be removed. I think it is just an editing artifact. The same link appears in the next sentence, to which it is actually relevant. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.103.180 ( talk) 01:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
This section starts off somewhat abruptly - "the peace plan" with no background could probably be improved. Also the sentence introducing Kofi Annan feels abrupt. Think this could be cleaned up a little (first impression while reading through article). - KaJunl ( talk) 02:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Article says, "On 24 November 2015, Turkey reportedly shot down a Russian warplane due to repeated airspace violation.[564]" The word "reportedly" is used, but also "reportedly" that claim is false. The article says, "due to." But the cause of this action is uncertain. The "due to" could be Turkey's desire to protect Turks living in Syria, and the Turkish explanation could be a "prophasis," and not the real reason. Claims such as made in this article require at least 2 reliable secondary sources -- the sources are not reliable if coming from prejudiced or ax-to-grind sources. And there should not be ostensibly reliable sources contradicting the claims. Who knows what happened & why? Was this the shoot down after a 30 second fly over a tiny protrusion of Turkish land into Syria -- shoot down occurring after Russian plane was gone and over Syria? These questions lead me to propose that the sentence be changed to "On 24 November, 2015, Turkey reportedly shot down a Russian warplane. Turkey justifies this action as a response to airspace violation. Russia denies the alleged violation." I so changed the entry for the editors' consideration.( EnochBethany ( talk) 18:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Syrian Civil War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is credible information regarding the list of allies ISIS has. Turkey should be listed as an ally towards ISIS, Turkey has been purchasing all of the oil ISIS is able to capture or produce. Mark Van Muur ( talk) 02:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been reading through the article and making mostly minor grammar changes. So far mostly consistency for things like capitalization. Feel free to change anything if you think I picked the wrong standard in cases where things were being done two ways - my preference is just that you keep it consistent throughout the article. Maybe it'd be worthwhile to have some sort of list somewhere of the preferred spelling/transliteration/capitalization for common terms? Not sure. - KaJunl ( talk) 19:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I think this section can be expanded/redone. Doesn't need to be huge, but I don't feel like the couple of sentences there currently paint a good overall summary picture. - KaJunl ( talk) 21:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The belligerents section is beginning to feel a bit outdated. The section on the Kurds probably could be expanded to talk more about Rojava and recent history. The ISIS section has some seemingly random lines, like the bit about Palmyra, that probably fit best elsewhere.
Overall, I feel like we should make sure that this section always lines up nicely against the "main belligerents" section of the chart on the right, seems to be talking about the same groups/groups them together the same, etc.
- KaJunl ( talk) 22:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
new event - http://www.euronews.com/2015/11/27/turkey-detains-journalists-who-allege-army-lorries-carried-weapons-for-isil/ - I still can't find the original Turkish article, in Euronews article said about "intelligence agency MIT trucks carrying weapons"...
2015 Douma market air strikes, call for input/edits to get article in shape. Rename to 2015 Douma market massacre?
This
edit request to
Syrian Civil War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove Recep Erdogan from infobox supporting kurds and place in column supporting ISIL, as per discussion
Mathaddict ( talk) 05:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
this article is on a list of articles needing help with spelling and grammar. I just went through the lede with a fairly light hand. I do not believe that I have introduced any meaning changes so I figure these are not reverts, but perhaps people may want to take a look, given the contentious nature of the topic. I am stopping here for now. Elinruby ( talk) 20:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
this isn't a traditional civil war. this involves transnational and many states. as well as frequent spillovers in neighbouring countries. it should be called "Syrian War (2011-present)" or "War in Syria (2011-present)"-- Stefvh96 ( talk) 01:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Given that Rojava is listed as one of the 4 main belligerents, after reading this article, I feel the topic is not adequately covered. I know that there is the separate "Rojava" article, but I think the amount of territory currently in YPG control warrants some more information on the group in the Syrian Civil War article. - KaJunl ( talk) 22:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
To clarify - I was referring to the article as a whole, not just in the belligerents section. The course of events seems to not give appropriate weight to the YPG either. - KaJunl ( talk) 14:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I may take some time to get to this, but the prose in the article needs some serious cleanup. It is right now mostly in proseline format, and it needs to be rewritten into a more natural narrative. I have tagged the article as such to alert interested editors to the problem, and am leaving this notice here explaining what needs to be done to improve the text. The information is all good, it just needs some work for stylistic purposes. -- Jayron 32 17:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Erdogan's "air force has mostly bombed the Kurds" rather than ISIS, according to "The Economist". Why are they on the same side in the infobox? Esn ( talk) 03:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Turkey and PKK are not allies, but opponents. Turkey and YPG, are not allies. Rojava and Turkey are not allies either. YPG has close ties with PKK, a lot of the YPG people, are saying that they are the same people, and it is from the conflict with Turkey that they have gained their experience. PKK and Turkey are opponents for 40 years now. In addition even now, Turkey is attacking PKK in Iraq and Turkey and PKK is attacking Turkey, in Turkey. It is POV to add Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK and Turkey in the same alliance. I will post a few images that show the, imprisoned in Turkey, leader and founder of PKK in banners, flags and houses of the YPG.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/files/live/sites/almonitor/files/images/almpics/2013/10/ypgocalan.jpg http://www.davidmeseguer.com/wp-content/uploads/Asayis2.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8b9sdEVnfow/VYv9x7L-HFI/AAAAAAAAASI/jy5hvwXb1Ko/s1600/ku3.jpg.
Rojava is YPG, BF is YPG plus FSA, PKK is PKK, so there are not allies with Turkey. Adding Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK and Turkey as allies, will find, neither Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK and their sources, nor, the Turkish government and its sources, to agree with.
You can add the European and North American countries plus Australia in the same side with Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK as well as FSA, but from there and on you need to check more, about who to add, and its relation with them Ron1978 ( talk) 22:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Now it became even more POV than before, since in the same alliance a part have being named Democratic forces, with allies all the Sunni Islamic organizations, and in the same alliance you also find PKK and Turkey, which are not allies but opponents. I suggest the following:
In one column to add the NPF and its allies, something which is clear. In another to add the Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK-Iraqi Kurdistan. Keep on mind that those, are allies neither with the Islamic organizations nor the Turks. In another the FSA and its allies. FSA has some Islamic allies. In another the US-led coalition. If you prefer to add the coalition in the same side with Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK-Iraqi Kurdistan, then it is NPOV only if it contains the countries that are allies with and not opponents. In another any Islamic groups that are not allies with the FSA. In another Isis.
Keep on mind, that the main combatants are the NPF, the Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK-Iraqi Kurdistan, the FSA, the Islamic groups and Isis. Those are the ones that is NPOV to have the infobox based on them. Ron1978 ( talk) 00:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I am just suggesting the 6 columns based on what is going on. If anyone else agree on that, you can tell it here and then we can proceed. From there and onwards, anyone can add anything that he/she wants, with the appropriate sources. DylanLacey you are right that Turkey has shelled the YPG and that BBC said it. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34645462 I haven't disagreed with that. I have just said that Turkey is at war with PKK, I haven't denied anything else. Both you and everyone else, are welcome to add any sources claiming anything, in the case Ron1978 ( talk) 16:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The template lists them PYD & Turkey as allies, but in fact Turkish Army have targeted PYD positions in Syria. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-hits-pyd-twice-for-crossing-euphrates-pm.aspx?pageID=238&nID=90385&NewsCatID=352 Kavas But historically and as in Iraq, Peshmerga is an ally of Turkey. ( talk) 23:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
A fifth column should be formed to exclude the CJTF–OIR from the Rojava in the Main belligerents table, and to exlude world leaders from being listed under Rojava in the Commanders and leaders table. - Dominator1453 ( talk) 05:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Why is Russia listed on two sides of the war ?-- MarcusPearl95 ( talk) 04:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
German minister accuses Qatar of funding Islamic State fighters http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-germany-qatar-idUSKBN0GK1I720140820 87.252.229.3 ( talk)
"Tourism in Syria has been severely affected by the conflict. In 2013, revenue of tourism industry was 94% lower than pre-conflict figures. Around 289 tourist sites have been damaged in conflict.[114]"
This seems like a fairly callous way to finish up the top-of-page summery, and a little pointless considering that there's a link to the "Tourism in Syria" page further down under "Impact." I'd remove it myself, if not for the page lock. Thanks. 2601:43:1:FEFF:15C3:2733:FBB3:D813 ( talk) 02:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you count refuges? Then 11 million 'tourist' may enjoy visiting Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 08:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The term "civil war" does not seem to be appropriate anymore, given the very high number of foreign belligerents and their impact on the course of the war: Western coalition, Russia, Iran, Hezbolah, Kurds from Turkey, Afghans, foreign jihadists etc. Furthermore, the term "Syrian civil war" is very seldom used in the media. I suggest we rename this to "Syrian war". Lerichard ( talk) 20:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@ FunkMonk: I'm sure not every civil war :P, but obviously most. For instance, Europe was involved in the American Civil War. The Syrian Civil War is not Korea or Vietnam in terms of Civil Wars with foreign involvement. If that changes, we'll note it, but it hasn't. -- Monochrome_ Monitor 13:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Change to 'civil war' to WW3 . It is not the truth is first *casualty* of war as commonly quoted. I aee war is direct result of lie. This seems to be seemingly independent of human action. Is like general property of universe , as the water flowing down, to go to equilibrium . Lie is excited state , like market bubble have to burst, sooner the better. The amount of lie on 'by deception' side grow exponentially since old lies need to be cover up by magnitude of new lies. That why lie may help on short run but never last permanently. All history teach liars lose all wars. 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 09:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The following line is in the article: "In April 2013, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq released an audio statement announcing that al-Nusra Front is its branch in Syria." Should we still include this? I feel like it's more confusing than anything, given how things have evolved. ISI/al Quaeda in Iraq has morphed into ISIL and is generally separate from the al-Nusra Front (right?) - KaJunl ( talk) 21:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Oil is mentioned a lot, and there are a lot of accusations now between warring parties about who is trading oil with whom. There are discussions on this talk page about news articles and opinion pieces accusing countries of trading oil with ISIS. Especially coming from states, these accusations are notable enough for a separate section (though they should be represented neutrally: who made the accusation against whom, where were oil tankers destroyed when, how long has ISIS been transporting oil before attacks on oil tankers and wells began, etc). The accusations themselves, coming from states, are part of a geopolitical strategy for the war in Syria - whether they are true or not. Also, restriction of oil trade is now seen as a key part in the strategy to fight ISIL. What do others think? -- BurritoBazooka ( talk) 02:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
first use - wikilink
On 11 September 2014 the US Congress expressed support to give President Obama the $500 million he wanted to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels.
On 11 September 2014 the US Congress expressed support to give President Obama the $500 million he wanted to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels.
99.90.196.227 ( talk) 07:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IschF-ihjS0
please remove from the article.. 178.148.10.191 ( talk) 00:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
also, sentence ... which would have threatened the Syrian government with targeted sanctions if it continued military actions against protestors. misquotes its source. specifically, 'military intervention' in source refers to outside intervention, not Syria's military.
178.148.10.191 (
talk)
00:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I am going through the section labelled Assad government. I just wanted to note that I put clarification needed at the end of the first paragraph even though I am fairly sure I understand it because that is an AWFUL sentence that really cries out to be reworded by someone with a better grasp of the details. Break it into two sentences if necessary, don't be shy. Something like "elections were actually referendums with only one presidential candidate. Other political offices generally also only had one candidate on the ballot." Assuming that's true of course, and that's a little more than a copy edit change if I am misunderstanding the original. So. Someone please fix.
Also, the section is more about how the Assad governmment came to power than just the Assad government if you ask me, but I am in here because it's on a list of articles that need hels with spelling and grammar so I merely suggest the change. I am going to get through the end of this section and consider my good deed for the day is done. The problem with copyedits on these one-revert articles is you get yelled at ;) Elinruby ( talk) 02:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The last sentence in the second paragraph may well be true -- in fact I believe it is -- but the is wikipedia and we need a little more than what Elinruby thinks she maybe might have heard. Which analysts, whose? And why is it surprising that reformists were complaining? Is the missing link here that Assad fils was allegedly a reformer? That thing about legacy of stagnation has got to go too. You don't get a legacy in ten or fifteen years. I'm actually not sure what to call it and I already had three template on the sentence, but please be more specific, ie terrible economy would be better for example; what's there could just as well mean moral turpor or just about anything actually. Also, I failed to comment on a clarification needed in the first paragraph--I don't think you can assume that english-speaking readers know what you mean by traditional leaders here. Elinruby ( talk) 03:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section "Course of events", sub-section "Escalation (November 2011 – March 2012)", remove the fourth paragraph which begins "On January 17, 2012 ...". Replace with "An internet survey of more than 1,000 people across 18 countries in the Middle East and North Africa in December 2011 found that 81% thought that Bashar al-Assad should resign. 55% of the Syrians polled did not think their president should resign, but it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions from this because only 98 Syrians were included in the poll." The source for this is the following BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17155349 Many thanks. Minisilly ( talk)
Needs discussion How about "On January 17, 2012 the UK's Guardian reported on a YouGov Siraj poll on Syria commissioned by The Doha Debates funded by the Qatar Foundation, which found that 55% of Syrians supported President Bashar al-Assad. However, Syrians were only a small subset of the larger group polled." Seems more neutral? I agree with you that the original paragraph is biased especially given the details you provided. Maybe this is worth taking out altogether? Quoting a poll, only then to say that the poll is not credible, kind of takes away any noteworthiness. It seems like it was included because the Guardian reported on it, and possibly to try to give a picture of public perception of the government at that time (even if only based on a very small sample). Or alternatively, could have just been that a pro-gov person edited it in and no one ever checked it or edited it out. - KaJunl ( talk) 14:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
There is no official confirmation of this. 216.165.209.210 ( talk) 01:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Moscow confirmed it had "experts" on the ground in Syria, its long-time ally in the Middle East. But Russia has declined to comment on the scale and scope of its military presence. Damascus denied Russians were involved in combat, but a Syrian official said the presence of experts had increased in the past year.
Here are a couple of links detailing Cuban involvement on the Syrian government's side: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/16/cuba-is-intervening-in-syria-to-help-russia-it-s-not-the-first-time-havana-s-assisted-moscow.html http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/10/14/cuban-military-forces-deployed-to-syria-to-operate-russian-tanks-say-sources/
I'd add Cuba to the list of countries that "support" the government, but unfortunately, the data for the war is in one of those infoboxes meaning it can't be edited. BGManofID ( talk) 21:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
When I passed through article, I had feeling its very one-sided, like being pamphlet for one side. Could article deliver more balanced distribution of photos or we are aiming here at one side ? -- PetarM ( talk) 09:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
@Everyone @ BlueHypercane761, Rob984, and DuckZz: Hi. There is a second template, at Template:Syrian Civil War map that seems to duplicate the image you are using and updating in your infobox. That other template's image is updated more frequently, so you might want to use it instead of duplicating the work. Even if not, you might want to collaborate with the Wikipedians curating that template and image, if only not to duplicate effort, and not waste time. — Boruch Baum ( talk) 22:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
When I saw that the Houthis were listed in the template as an "allied militia", it sounded strange, so I looked at the reference, and after examining the reference, it seems even more dubious. Because I don't know the criteria used for inclusion in the list, I would like a consensus to remove them from the template. My points in favor are:
— Boruch Baum ( talk) 12:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
It's finally pleasing to see Turkey not occupying the same column with PKK and PYD as Turkey's air force also started military operations against YPG.( Turkish PM: We have concocted 2 operations against YPG and this may be taken further - AlJazeera) I've mentioned it is not plausible to add Turkey to the same column a long time ago in the talk page but me and my resources have been ignored, my edits have been reverted and my entry to the talk page has been literally deleted.
Now, I see the infobox again lacks the Syrian Turkmen Brigades which I had also given numerous resources on topic, both academical papers, strategical analysis, news reports and state speeches. I have checked for why it has been deleted and found no explanation, not a single word. Interprating this with optimist thoughts that the editor might erased it thinking that they had gone inactive; I have added the Syrian Turkmen Brigades again and I'm sharing new and up to date information about them (Like the ones I have shared in August and September were not up to date enough.) Here are two:
Thanks.
Berkaysnklf (
talk)
14:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Does the (so far) paper Alliance of the "Democratic forces" really merit being isted as the main opposition force? Putting large, real, alliances lik the Islamic Front in the back? The organizations listed under it are wrong, as well - far from the entire FSA have joined. Also, who wrote that Nusra is the "main opposition force"? Feels ike Moscow and Pentagon fanboys/employees are working this page. Everyone else have to step up their game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.0.174 ( talk) 10:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Why is France not listed as a supporter of the FSA in the infobox, considering that it was said by Hollande that France has delivered arms to them since 2012? Esn ( talk) 19:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I cut paragraph breaks, reducing the intro to just three paragraphs. Feel free to express your thoughts. -- George Ho ( talk) 07:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
One paragraph was moved deservingly to a section discussing the related subtopic. The intro has an extra paragraph; ideally, no more than four paragraph would be enough to introduce readers to the ongoing civil war. -- George Ho ( talk) 22:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
"The Syrian Civil War \ is an ongoing international[78] armed conflict taking place in Syria. "
International war is not a civil war. Please fix this obvious semantic lie.
The SDF is not an umbrella group for the Syrian opposition, it is a coalition to fight ISIS in eastern Syria. The PYD leader said the collapse of the Assad regime would be a disaster, and the YPG have fought alongside and received arms from the regime. Just yesterday the SNC accused the PYD of supporting Assad. The Al Sanadid forces in the SDF are supporters of the Syrian regime. Dividing the opposition between the territory controlled by the SDF and the Army of Conquest ignores all the opposition groups outside the east and northwest of the country. I hope this info box can be split back into separate columns for the Kurds and the mainstream Syrian opposition.-- 109.157.229.116 ( talk) 10:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
“Rebels have committed various crimes and have on multiple occasions called for genocide and ethnic cleansing of Christians, Alawites, Shiite, Druze and other minorities” Despite stating such reports of human rights outrages by the rebels, Wikipedia continues to use the statement that the “vast majority of the abuses having been committed by the Syrian government”. If this comment was ever true, latest press and media reports increasing call it into question. So, in light of new information, are Wikipedia ready to reconsider their one-sided statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.50.196 ( talk) 12:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
|
do they saing what they saing?? [1]} or somebody hacked the NYT website? All the time was palid that US will fight against ISIS not will help ISIS faight . This support fo IS was put in UN by Natanyhoo exactly a year ago when he say to defeat ISIS is to win the battle and lose the war
How Naive are those explanation that Obama sending those 50 comandos to find those 5 modrate rebsls US Army trained for 500 milion in the last 5 years.. [2] ?
Please update the article if you know what is lie what is not. 2601:248:4301:6E23:4A5D:60FF:FE32:8309 ( talk) 03:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The article says that, "While the vast majority of war crimes and other gross violations continue to be committed by government forces", but for some reason leaves out, "our research also points to an escalation in abuses by armed opposition groups". To avoid charge of being a vehicle for FSA propaganda, should not Wikipedia reproduce the missing part of the quote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.230.240 ( talk) 15:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Harper is no longer Prime Minister of Canada. It should be updated to Justin Trudeau — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.3.149 ( talk) 11:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Done Jp16103 ( talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. ( non-admin closure) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Syrian Civil War → War in Syria – There are at least three international interventions in Syria, why we call it a civil war? Jenda H. ( talk) 09:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
References
Wesley Clark talks about it. 178.148.10.191 ( talk) 14:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
change required minimum work. We have the word taking already in header
the word 'place' may be used in
Even assuming the list is completely true and valid, still, there is still nothing to suggest that this list of seven countries is relevant to this specific war in Syria. For all the reader knows, war in Syria would be inevitable even if the US never made this list in 2001. Original research is being committed in suggesting that this war has to do with that list, without evidence of that specific fact. Perhaps Clark's list is more relevant in one of these articles:
-- BurritoBazooka ( talk) 01:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Also we cant go anywhere if you will use antysemantic conspiracy theory phrase. The corect term is de conspiracy. The Clark show existing secret conspiracy, as any army conspire , do not forward its plan in open. This should be obvious and such empty argument discounted from any serious dispute. Again any army conspire and do not have plan open to public. So confirm you will use semantic or put dictionary of your antisemantic terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 03:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Topic being discussed here is very relevant for the Foreign involvement section of this article.. so no need to talk about delegating it to other (maybe also relevant) articles. 178.148.10.191 ( talk) 21:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
this isn't a traditional civil war. this involves transnational and many states. as well as frequent spillovers in neighbouring countries. it should be called "Syrian War (2011-present)" or "War in Syria (2011-present)"-- Stefvh96 ( talk) 01:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Infobox should have Turkey as supported of ISIS, there are undeniable evidences:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/links-between-turkey-isis-now-195700510.html http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/18/turkey-cut-islamic-state-supply-lines-erdogan-isis Dafranca ( talk) 20:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC) http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/19/turkeys-informal-isis-support 179.105.82.13 ( talk) 16:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You received no response, and below you a separate discussion took place about whether Turkey should be listed under support of Kurds, somehow the deccision was made to continue listing Turkey as a Kurdish support. This article like so much of wikipedia when it comes to anything controversial in geopolitics, its essentially laughable and worthless pro-USA propaganda. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar are at the very least NOT in favor of the Kurds, and a strong case can be made to list all 3 states as being more or less with ISIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.52.222 ( talk) 04:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps someone with more knowledge could shed some light on this situation. Currently, the infobox displays the number of Iranian KIA as 146. However, this excludes the approximately 385 Afghan and Pakistani troops who died fighting for the IRGC. How, exactly, should we categorize the Afghan and Pakistani fighters? They appear to be in a similar situation to the French Foreign Legion, and so should count as part of the Iranian military:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/31/world/meast/syria-afghan-fighter/
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/shiite-combat-casualties-show-the-depth-of-irans-involvement-in-syria
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-afghan-shiite-fighters-in-syria
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSkrFNBXAAAxnT6.jpg:large
So? Should the number of Iranian military KIA be listed as 146+ or 531+?- Nihlus1 ( talk) 08:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Infobox should have Turkey as supported of ISIS, there are undeniable evidences:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/links-between-turkey-isis-now-195700510.html http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/18/turkey-cut-islamic-state-supply-lines-erdogan-isis Dafranca ( talk) 20:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC) http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/19/turkeys-informal-isis-support 179.105.82.13 ( talk) 16:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You received no response, and below you a separate discussion took place about whether Turkey should be listed under support of Kurds, somehow the deccision was made to continue listing Turkey as a Kurdish support. This article like so much of wikipedia when it comes to anything controversial in geopolitics, its essentially laughable and worthless pro-USA propaganda. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar are at the very least NOT in favor of the Kurds, and a strong case can be made to list all 3 states as being more or less with ISIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.52.222 ( talk) 04:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Syrian Civil War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Turkey has allies within the listed group of oppositions, including Saudi Arabia. It is a known fact. Mark Van Muur ( talk) 02:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Please read the article and express your opinion, is there any grounds to consider these facts as supporting IS? Thank. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/research-paper-isis-turke_b_6128950.html
Reference link (a) 143 under Course Of Events does not provide specific support for the statement and should be removed. I think it is just an editing artifact. The same link appears in the next sentence, to which it is actually relevant. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.103.180 ( talk) 01:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
This section starts off somewhat abruptly - "the peace plan" with no background could probably be improved. Also the sentence introducing Kofi Annan feels abrupt. Think this could be cleaned up a little (first impression while reading through article). - KaJunl ( talk) 02:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Article says, "On 24 November 2015, Turkey reportedly shot down a Russian warplane due to repeated airspace violation.[564]" The word "reportedly" is used, but also "reportedly" that claim is false. The article says, "due to." But the cause of this action is uncertain. The "due to" could be Turkey's desire to protect Turks living in Syria, and the Turkish explanation could be a "prophasis," and not the real reason. Claims such as made in this article require at least 2 reliable secondary sources -- the sources are not reliable if coming from prejudiced or ax-to-grind sources. And there should not be ostensibly reliable sources contradicting the claims. Who knows what happened & why? Was this the shoot down after a 30 second fly over a tiny protrusion of Turkish land into Syria -- shoot down occurring after Russian plane was gone and over Syria? These questions lead me to propose that the sentence be changed to "On 24 November, 2015, Turkey reportedly shot down a Russian warplane. Turkey justifies this action as a response to airspace violation. Russia denies the alleged violation." I so changed the entry for the editors' consideration.( EnochBethany ( talk) 18:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Syrian Civil War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is credible information regarding the list of allies ISIS has. Turkey should be listed as an ally towards ISIS, Turkey has been purchasing all of the oil ISIS is able to capture or produce. Mark Van Muur ( talk) 02:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I've been reading through the article and making mostly minor grammar changes. So far mostly consistency for things like capitalization. Feel free to change anything if you think I picked the wrong standard in cases where things were being done two ways - my preference is just that you keep it consistent throughout the article. Maybe it'd be worthwhile to have some sort of list somewhere of the preferred spelling/transliteration/capitalization for common terms? Not sure. - KaJunl ( talk) 19:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I think this section can be expanded/redone. Doesn't need to be huge, but I don't feel like the couple of sentences there currently paint a good overall summary picture. - KaJunl ( talk) 21:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
The belligerents section is beginning to feel a bit outdated. The section on the Kurds probably could be expanded to talk more about Rojava and recent history. The ISIS section has some seemingly random lines, like the bit about Palmyra, that probably fit best elsewhere.
Overall, I feel like we should make sure that this section always lines up nicely against the "main belligerents" section of the chart on the right, seems to be talking about the same groups/groups them together the same, etc.
- KaJunl ( talk) 22:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
new event - http://www.euronews.com/2015/11/27/turkey-detains-journalists-who-allege-army-lorries-carried-weapons-for-isil/ - I still can't find the original Turkish article, in Euronews article said about "intelligence agency MIT trucks carrying weapons"...
2015 Douma market air strikes, call for input/edits to get article in shape. Rename to 2015 Douma market massacre?
This
edit request to
Syrian Civil War has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove Recep Erdogan from infobox supporting kurds and place in column supporting ISIL, as per discussion
Mathaddict ( talk) 05:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
this article is on a list of articles needing help with spelling and grammar. I just went through the lede with a fairly light hand. I do not believe that I have introduced any meaning changes so I figure these are not reverts, but perhaps people may want to take a look, given the contentious nature of the topic. I am stopping here for now. Elinruby ( talk) 20:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
this isn't a traditional civil war. this involves transnational and many states. as well as frequent spillovers in neighbouring countries. it should be called "Syrian War (2011-present)" or "War in Syria (2011-present)"-- Stefvh96 ( talk) 01:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Given that Rojava is listed as one of the 4 main belligerents, after reading this article, I feel the topic is not adequately covered. I know that there is the separate "Rojava" article, but I think the amount of territory currently in YPG control warrants some more information on the group in the Syrian Civil War article. - KaJunl ( talk) 22:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
To clarify - I was referring to the article as a whole, not just in the belligerents section. The course of events seems to not give appropriate weight to the YPG either. - KaJunl ( talk) 14:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
I may take some time to get to this, but the prose in the article needs some serious cleanup. It is right now mostly in proseline format, and it needs to be rewritten into a more natural narrative. I have tagged the article as such to alert interested editors to the problem, and am leaving this notice here explaining what needs to be done to improve the text. The information is all good, it just needs some work for stylistic purposes. -- Jayron 32 17:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Erdogan's "air force has mostly bombed the Kurds" rather than ISIS, according to "The Economist". Why are they on the same side in the infobox? Esn ( talk) 03:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Turkey and PKK are not allies, but opponents. Turkey and YPG, are not allies. Rojava and Turkey are not allies either. YPG has close ties with PKK, a lot of the YPG people, are saying that they are the same people, and it is from the conflict with Turkey that they have gained their experience. PKK and Turkey are opponents for 40 years now. In addition even now, Turkey is attacking PKK in Iraq and Turkey and PKK is attacking Turkey, in Turkey. It is POV to add Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK and Turkey in the same alliance. I will post a few images that show the, imprisoned in Turkey, leader and founder of PKK in banners, flags and houses of the YPG.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/files/live/sites/almonitor/files/images/almpics/2013/10/ypgocalan.jpg http://www.davidmeseguer.com/wp-content/uploads/Asayis2.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8b9sdEVnfow/VYv9x7L-HFI/AAAAAAAAASI/jy5hvwXb1Ko/s1600/ku3.jpg.
Rojava is YPG, BF is YPG plus FSA, PKK is PKK, so there are not allies with Turkey. Adding Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK and Turkey as allies, will find, neither Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK and their sources, nor, the Turkish government and its sources, to agree with.
You can add the European and North American countries plus Australia in the same side with Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK as well as FSA, but from there and on you need to check more, about who to add, and its relation with them Ron1978 ( talk) 22:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Now it became even more POV than before, since in the same alliance a part have being named Democratic forces, with allies all the Sunni Islamic organizations, and in the same alliance you also find PKK and Turkey, which are not allies but opponents. I suggest the following:
In one column to add the NPF and its allies, something which is clear. In another to add the Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK-Iraqi Kurdistan. Keep on mind that those, are allies neither with the Islamic organizations nor the Turks. In another the FSA and its allies. FSA has some Islamic allies. In another the US-led coalition. If you prefer to add the coalition in the same side with Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK-Iraqi Kurdistan, then it is NPOV only if it contains the countries that are allies with and not opponents. In another any Islamic groups that are not allies with the FSA. In another Isis.
Keep on mind, that the main combatants are the NPF, the Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK-Iraqi Kurdistan, the FSA, the Islamic groups and Isis. Those are the ones that is NPOV to have the infobox based on them. Ron1978 ( talk) 00:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I am just suggesting the 6 columns based on what is going on. If anyone else agree on that, you can tell it here and then we can proceed. From there and onwards, anyone can add anything that he/she wants, with the appropriate sources. DylanLacey you are right that Turkey has shelled the YPG and that BBC said it. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34645462 I haven't disagreed with that. I have just said that Turkey is at war with PKK, I haven't denied anything else. Both you and everyone else, are welcome to add any sources claiming anything, in the case Ron1978 ( talk) 16:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The template lists them PYD & Turkey as allies, but in fact Turkish Army have targeted PYD positions in Syria. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-hits-pyd-twice-for-crossing-euphrates-pm.aspx?pageID=238&nID=90385&NewsCatID=352 Kavas But historically and as in Iraq, Peshmerga is an ally of Turkey. ( talk) 23:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
A fifth column should be formed to exclude the CJTF–OIR from the Rojava in the Main belligerents table, and to exlude world leaders from being listed under Rojava in the Commanders and leaders table. - Dominator1453 ( talk) 05:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Why is Russia listed on two sides of the war ?-- MarcusPearl95 ( talk) 04:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
German minister accuses Qatar of funding Islamic State fighters http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-germany-qatar-idUSKBN0GK1I720140820 87.252.229.3 ( talk)
"Tourism in Syria has been severely affected by the conflict. In 2013, revenue of tourism industry was 94% lower than pre-conflict figures. Around 289 tourist sites have been damaged in conflict.[114]"
This seems like a fairly callous way to finish up the top-of-page summery, and a little pointless considering that there's a link to the "Tourism in Syria" page further down under "Impact." I'd remove it myself, if not for the page lock. Thanks. 2601:43:1:FEFF:15C3:2733:FBB3:D813 ( talk) 02:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Do you count refuges? Then 11 million 'tourist' may enjoy visiting Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 08:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The term "civil war" does not seem to be appropriate anymore, given the very high number of foreign belligerents and their impact on the course of the war: Western coalition, Russia, Iran, Hezbolah, Kurds from Turkey, Afghans, foreign jihadists etc. Furthermore, the term "Syrian civil war" is very seldom used in the media. I suggest we rename this to "Syrian war". Lerichard ( talk) 20:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
@ FunkMonk: I'm sure not every civil war :P, but obviously most. For instance, Europe was involved in the American Civil War. The Syrian Civil War is not Korea or Vietnam in terms of Civil Wars with foreign involvement. If that changes, we'll note it, but it hasn't. -- Monochrome_ Monitor 13:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Change to 'civil war' to WW3 . It is not the truth is first *casualty* of war as commonly quoted. I aee war is direct result of lie. This seems to be seemingly independent of human action. Is like general property of universe , as the water flowing down, to go to equilibrium . Lie is excited state , like market bubble have to burst, sooner the better. The amount of lie on 'by deception' side grow exponentially since old lies need to be cover up by magnitude of new lies. That why lie may help on short run but never last permanently. All history teach liars lose all wars. 99.90.196.227 ( talk) 09:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The following line is in the article: "In April 2013, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq released an audio statement announcing that al-Nusra Front is its branch in Syria." Should we still include this? I feel like it's more confusing than anything, given how things have evolved. ISI/al Quaeda in Iraq has morphed into ISIL and is generally separate from the al-Nusra Front (right?) - KaJunl ( talk) 21:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Oil is mentioned a lot, and there are a lot of accusations now between warring parties about who is trading oil with whom. There are discussions on this talk page about news articles and opinion pieces accusing countries of trading oil with ISIS. Especially coming from states, these accusations are notable enough for a separate section (though they should be represented neutrally: who made the accusation against whom, where were oil tankers destroyed when, how long has ISIS been transporting oil before attacks on oil tankers and wells began, etc). The accusations themselves, coming from states, are part of a geopolitical strategy for the war in Syria - whether they are true or not. Also, restriction of oil trade is now seen as a key part in the strategy to fight ISIL. What do others think? -- BurritoBazooka ( talk) 02:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
first use - wikilink
On 11 September 2014 the US Congress expressed support to give President Obama the $500 million he wanted to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels.
On 11 September 2014 the US Congress expressed support to give President Obama the $500 million he wanted to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels.
99.90.196.227 ( talk) 07:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IschF-ihjS0
please remove from the article.. 178.148.10.191 ( talk) 00:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
also, sentence ... which would have threatened the Syrian government with targeted sanctions if it continued military actions against protestors. misquotes its source. specifically, 'military intervention' in source refers to outside intervention, not Syria's military.
178.148.10.191 (
talk)
00:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I am going through the section labelled Assad government. I just wanted to note that I put clarification needed at the end of the first paragraph even though I am fairly sure I understand it because that is an AWFUL sentence that really cries out to be reworded by someone with a better grasp of the details. Break it into two sentences if necessary, don't be shy. Something like "elections were actually referendums with only one presidential candidate. Other political offices generally also only had one candidate on the ballot." Assuming that's true of course, and that's a little more than a copy edit change if I am misunderstanding the original. So. Someone please fix.
Also, the section is more about how the Assad governmment came to power than just the Assad government if you ask me, but I am in here because it's on a list of articles that need hels with spelling and grammar so I merely suggest the change. I am going to get through the end of this section and consider my good deed for the day is done. The problem with copyedits on these one-revert articles is you get yelled at ;) Elinruby ( talk) 02:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The last sentence in the second paragraph may well be true -- in fact I believe it is -- but the is wikipedia and we need a little more than what Elinruby thinks she maybe might have heard. Which analysts, whose? And why is it surprising that reformists were complaining? Is the missing link here that Assad fils was allegedly a reformer? That thing about legacy of stagnation has got to go too. You don't get a legacy in ten or fifteen years. I'm actually not sure what to call it and I already had three template on the sentence, but please be more specific, ie terrible economy would be better for example; what's there could just as well mean moral turpor or just about anything actually. Also, I failed to comment on a clarification needed in the first paragraph--I don't think you can assume that english-speaking readers know what you mean by traditional leaders here. Elinruby ( talk) 03:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section "Course of events", sub-section "Escalation (November 2011 – March 2012)", remove the fourth paragraph which begins "On January 17, 2012 ...". Replace with "An internet survey of more than 1,000 people across 18 countries in the Middle East and North Africa in December 2011 found that 81% thought that Bashar al-Assad should resign. 55% of the Syrians polled did not think their president should resign, but it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions from this because only 98 Syrians were included in the poll." The source for this is the following BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17155349 Many thanks. Minisilly ( talk)
Needs discussion How about "On January 17, 2012 the UK's Guardian reported on a YouGov Siraj poll on Syria commissioned by The Doha Debates funded by the Qatar Foundation, which found that 55% of Syrians supported President Bashar al-Assad. However, Syrians were only a small subset of the larger group polled." Seems more neutral? I agree with you that the original paragraph is biased especially given the details you provided. Maybe this is worth taking out altogether? Quoting a poll, only then to say that the poll is not credible, kind of takes away any noteworthiness. It seems like it was included because the Guardian reported on it, and possibly to try to give a picture of public perception of the government at that time (even if only based on a very small sample). Or alternatively, could have just been that a pro-gov person edited it in and no one ever checked it or edited it out. - KaJunl ( talk) 14:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)