WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article Casualties of the Syrian civil war, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are: Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. Remedy instructions and exemptions Enforcement procedures: Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard. Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned. With respect to any reverting restrictions: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism. Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Death Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Syria Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Arab world Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force

Archives

Archive 1

I agree with you on the other totals because they were based on figures that were coming from different sources and thus if we combined them that would have been OR due to possibility of overlapping figures. But, the figures in the new day-by-day table all come exclusivly from one source, the activist group SOHR, so they are in essence cited, there is no OR in this case. Your argument on the talk page was that we can't add up various types of casualties, various figures. I agree with that. But, these are not various, they all come from a unified source, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. If you have a problem with this please initiate a discussion on the talk page, I'm sure other editors of the Syria civil war events will join. EkoGraf ( talk) 11:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Why doesn't the SOHR have a total figure which can be cited directly? If they don't think that this is a good methodology to reach a total, why should we? Nick-D ( talk) 11:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC) reply

SOHR gives out daily totals which are cited by the mainstream media every day. They DO give out a total figure, but the problem with it is what we talked about before. In their total figure they combine civilian fatalities with rebel ones (those that were civilians in their previous lives). And than they just say X civilians have died, Y soldiers have died, F defectors have died. P.S. we count armed civilians as civilians. But in their daily totals they DO differentiate between standard rebels and civilians. So it is misleading for our readers that way. And I thought since they do nicely say every day the total number of rebel fatalities, and this does come from a unified sources and not different ones, it would be nice to present how many they said for a given month. If the daily totals came from different sources I wouldn't summ it up because as you said that would be OR, but this is all coming from one source. EkoGraf ( talk) 11:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Are any reliable sources providing monthly totals based on this data? (for instance, stories on the war by journalists). If not, I really don't think that we should. Given the nature of these kinds of figures (based on battlefield reports from a very confusing war and not collected by a consistent methodology) it's likely that they're not entirely reliable, so adding up totals gives them a false sense of precision. Nick-D ( talk) 11:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC) reply

SOHR is doing the same thing with their monthly totals as with their full total. They combine rebels and civilians into one category...civilian. I would totally agree with you otherwise, but we do have here a consistent methodology by this organisation. And the BBC, Reuters, AP and others obviously consider them reliable since they publish their full total, monthly totals and daily totals on a regular basis. EkoGraf ( talk) 11:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I fail to see how additioning day per day death toll is a problem as they are clearly separated and don't cover the same period. Personally, I am for additionning the death toll found in all sources for a given day, at the condition that they clearly refer to different events. Like we do for all the syrian battles pages. Then , we would compare it to the daily number of the rebel source Syrian Observatory and we would keep the more global. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 12:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Why don't you guys include both - A day by day SOHR and a Total SOHR. Sopher99 ( talk) 17:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC) reply

That's what we are discussing. We already have included SOHR's total figure for civilians, rebels and soldiers killed in the Overall deaths section. But, like I said up above, the problem is SOHR doesn't give out a full total figure of rebels-only killed. Instead they mix them up in their total number of civilians killed. But they do give out total numbers of rebels killed on individual days. And what I wanted to do is present SOHR's day-by-day totals of rebel fatalities, fully sourced, and than combine them so we can present some sort of full total of rebels killed in the war, according to SOHR. I had reservation before about combining the totals because that would have been a combination of figures from different organisations with different methodologies. But in this case all of the numbers are from one unified source, SOHR. So, do you think we should combine those day-by-day tolls given by SOHR so we can get an approximate full number according to that organisation? EkoGraf ( talk) 19:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Yeah, so long as you don't take out the day by day. Sopher99 ( talk) 19:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I already worked on a nice table last night for the day-by-day tolls and put it in the article. Check it out. :) EkoGraf ( talk) 19:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Daniel, there's a been a consensus in previous discussions on topics similar to this that adding up casualty figures from unrelated sources is not OK (see, for instance, the discussion at: Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001–present)#Taliban and insurgents casualty figure removed from the infobox as noted above. As I noted in my comments above (which EkoGraf has kindly moved across from the discussion on my talk page; thanks for this), my basic concern is that the source doesn't provide this total itself, and no reliable sources are adding up estimates of total casualties from its reports. I have to say that I'm a bit skeptical about whether the SOHR should be considered a reliable source if they're deliberately combining civilian and rebel casualties for propaganda purposes, though I note that their figures have been repeated by reliable sources (though this appears to be less frequent in recent days, possibly due to this issue). Nick-D ( talk) 10:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Not really actually, reliable sources are still reporting SOHR's daily tolls on a regular basis. Today [1] [2] the Telegraph and the Daily Star. The point with that previous discussion over at the Afghanistan war talk page, that you pointed me to earlier also thanks for that, is that there it really was a violation of the OR Wikipedia regulation because those reported deaths were all coming from multiple different sources. That is not the case here where all figures are coming from one source. So in essence this is a totally new topic on which we need a consensus. There it was clear multiple different sources can't be added up, which I agree. Here however is a question whether we should add up figures that are coming from one unified source. As for SOHR's reliability...the Telegraph, Reuters, AP, AFP, BBC news and others obviously regard them as reliable since they use their numbers on a regular basis. EkoGraf ( talk) 14:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I guess due to the non traditional way that the rebels dress and behave it is impossible to clearly delineate between a combatant and a non-combatant. While it's important to try and determine civilian deaths, I'm afraid that it's impossible due to the variety of involvement on the rebel side. Some may simply be family members grieving a loss and acting out while others may be more organized. Because of this, I believe the current method of describing the casualties is adequate. Jimerb ( talk) 13:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I did not understand what you said. Do you approve or disapprove of us combining the reported number of rebels killed by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights? Three editors have been in agreement over this while one was against. So I didn't manage to follow you. Also, I should warn you that you saying Some may simply be family members grieving a loss and acting out while others may be more organized is considered original research and a personal point of view on Wikipedia and is thus not allowed. Our edits need to be based on verifiable data that can be found. As far as SOHR goes, they got activists embedded with the rebel battalions themselves and those embedded with civilian councils/committees, and each day the activists report on the number of rebel fighter deaths they manage to document and civilian deaths as well. What me and the other editors have been trying to agree on is that we combine all of the reported rebel deaths by SOHR and present a unified number of rebel deaths reported by that activist organisation. And of course we note that the number has come exclusivly from SOHR. That way readers will be able to easier ascertain how many civilians had been killed as well. That's what you were actually asking me before when asking how you could know how many civilians have died. This way would only make it easier for the readers. Now, would you agree with this? EkoGraf ( talk) 16:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I believe the number should be totaled but the details of how it was totaled should not be removed. That level of detail will improve the reliability of the article. A table with each claim of deaths from SOHR would be nice giving a reference and then totaled on the bottom. The proper columns could be included that outline the typical data distributed by SOHR. The current table on the page starts to go down this path, but I don't know if the total boxes (proves) with the total death count (the numbers seems too low.)

My comment that you quoted above is something I would never put into the article. It was my reflection on the situation in Syria and the fact that all of the rebels are not acting as one force. Many don't wear uniforms so it seems unlikely that a clear distinction could ever be drawn between civilians and combat forces. If someone who was out in the morning fighting the Syrian army is killed in his home in the evening by artillery (while eating diner with his family) is that a Civilian or Combatant death? I'm sure you can see the dilemma.

Finally I just wanted to say thank you for providing the contributions to this page. It is a great service you are focusing on.

Jimerb ( talk) 17:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Actually, that was the whole idea. We don't want to remove the details. As you can see in the article, we already have a table (which is still in the making). We would leave the table. Just add a total at the end of it. So we are in agreement on that, great. And about your comment, what I said was just an advice. Glad we cleared it all up. :) P.S. About that dilemma you mentioned. Actually I don't see it. If a rebel fights during the day, and goes in the evening to his family for dinner and gets killed he is still a combatant, just a combatant on temporary leave as they would say in the military, since he would be back fighting the next morning again. EkoGraf ( talk) 18:32, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes a total at the end would be good. An effort should be made to get the details of the table to add up to the overall death total that is being claimed in the article -- complete with references. Regarding the rebel fighting again next morning -- he probably will be fighting but how do you know that? How can one be certain that any civilian couldn't in some way be considered a combatant that is off duty? (Which is precisely what the Syrian government is claiming) They don't have paperwork. I see this as a slippery slope. Jimerb ( talk) 20:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply

These are documented rebels killed per the opposition forces themselves. If it were by the government I would think it unreliable. And actually in my own personal opinion, I think that the rebel death toll is much larger than reported because there are probably numerous fighters being listed as simple civilians. But that's all speculation on our part. We stick to what the sources say. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I restored August 2014 UN estimate of Syria death toll (191,000) because it is based on a published study by an independent group taking into account different sources, so it’s one of the most complete and reliable counts we have. On the other hand, I can’t find any UN press release with the 220,000 figure cited by AP on 15 January. Does it even exist? Nykterinos ( talk) 13:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply

The SOHR numbers regarding civilians killed in the Syrian Civil War contradicts. In the Overall toll of the war, there are 250,000 dead (including 115,000 civilians) ^[1] but in the chart of the article (which is fed by SOHR reports) the civilians killed reach 74,000 aprox. This means that there are a 40,000 "civilians" killed without a date of death. Or better said their method of "reporting" numbers failed. Even anyone can assume those are indeed rebels killed Mr.User200 ( talk) 13:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC). reply

The last report for 115,000 killed listed them separately from rebel fighters of Syrian nationalities which they estimated at 41,201 (in addition to 2,551 defected soldiers and 37,010 non-Syrian rebels). There's the possibility that SOHR updated their previous yearly death tolls after documenting more previously undeclared deaths. In any case, we have to stick to what the sources state for now and see how it plays out. We see whats SOHR's 2015 figure and general overall toll for the war when they report it at the turn of the year. EkoGraf ( talk) 20:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Mr.User200:@ EkoGraf: The discrepancy in civilian deaths between the monthly and yearly SOHR death tolls, on the one hand, and the 2011-2015 SOHR overall death toll, on the other hand, is not due to an update by SOHR of previous death tolls, but it is definitely due to the fact that, for some reason, in the overall death tolls only, SOHR not only lists "YPG, the rebel and Islamist fighters" separately, but also includes them among civilian fatalities, i.e. it lists them twice. Therefore, if you want to know the number of strictly civilian fatalities in the overall death toll, you have to subtract the number of Syrian rebels from the total number of "civilians". In this way, the yearly and monthly tolls perfectly match the overall tolls, and the overall toll itself matches the subtotals given within it (otherwise, you get 290,000 documented deaths, not 250,000). All this is explained in this article ("Due to the opposition's policy of counting rebel fighters that were not defectors as civilians..."), and has repeatedly been explained in secondary sources (e.g., see here, and see how this Middle East Eye article reports this August 2015 SOHR overall death toll). For these reasons, I would restore the 2011-2015 cumulative number from the yearly and monthly tolls in the "Death tolls by time periods" table. Nykterinos ( talk) 15:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Nykterinos: What you said is correct. It is true when it comes to SOHR's DAILY death toll reports and reports for the WHOLE conflict since 2011 they mix. While, when it comes to their MONTHLY and YEARLY reports (as the ones in the table), they do not mix civilians and fighters. But, that was not the discrepancy I was talking about when removing the cumulative total from the table. I was talking about the following: at last count (15 October) there was 250,241 overall dead (proper, without the doublecounting); if you add the 4,182 from the whole of November you get 254,423; the cumulative figure you came to is 257,099; I know there was another 15 days left in October but that could potentially account for at least 2,100 more deaths (half of that month) and bring the figure to 256,523 (still around 570 away from 257,099). So, due to this 570 discrepancy I felt it was prudent to not put figures that we came to by our own math (potential OR) and stick only to those that are clearly stated in the sources provided. We will most likely have a much clearer situation in two weeks when SOHR releases its figures for 2015 and the whole conflict, as they do at the turn of each year. So it would maybe be best to wait for that yearly report. :) PS I stand corrected about my previous reply to Mr.User200, my bad. The discrepancy between 115,000 and 74,000 was due to 115,000 including fighters, while 74,000 didn't include fighters. EkoGraf ( talk) 18:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

OK then, but a 570 fatalities discrepancy (as opposed to a 40,000 discrepancy) doesn't seem to me so problematic to delete the totals based on WP:CALC, which ordinary readers could find helpful when looking at the table. Besides, the article currently doesn't make explicit the overall number of civilian deaths according to SOHR, which could be helpful, too, given the confusion SOHR itself makes in the reports on the overall conflict deaths. Nykterinos ( talk) 20:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Nykterinos: I calculated the overall number of civilian deaths per SOHR citing their last overall toll (from mid-October) for the conflict (after subtracting the fighters since they mixed them) and put the figure over at the Syrian war infobox (74,426 at the time). Maybe we create a section dedicated only to civilian deaths? EkoGraf ( talk) 20:29, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I think it would be very helpful. Nykterinos ( talk) 20:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/11/report-on-syria-conflict-finds-115-of-population-killed-or-injured Syria’s national wealth, infrastructure and institutions have been “almost obliterated” by the “catastrophic impact” of nearly five years of conflict, a new report has found. Fatalities caused by war, directly and indirectly, amount to 470,000, according to the Syrian Centre for Policy Research (SCPR) – — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.244.77.96 ( talk) 10:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Elsewhere in the article descriptions of SOHR seem reasonable but the following line may be biased:

"The following figures were all compiled by the SOHR which is considered an authoritative source on the matter.["

- KaJunl ( talk) 04:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Totally agree. SOHR is not seen as authoratative at all but widely criticised by Syria journalists for its sloppy use of sources. An example would be the 22 killed it claimed for the US airstrike last week, which has not been corroborated by any other source and seems highly unlikely. SOHR is used by reliable sources for specific incidents because it is usually the only source, but its data is nowhere near as robust as SNHR or VDC. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 09:32, 2 March 2021 (UTC) reply

The description that its an "authoritative" source on the matter is according to the cited RS reference and was previously discussed and agreed to years ago. As for SOHR's reliability, it has already been discussed and re-discussed on Wikipedia probably dozens of times on various talk pages and noticeboards (including administrator mediation) and its been concluded each time its a generally reliable source when it comes to territorial changes and casualty figures. EkoGraf ( talk) 23:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Changing term "Regime" for Syrian Army forces — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.94.71.201 ( talk) 21:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC) reply

1/ Rough consensus that it is generally reliable for use here with caveats is not quite the same as us saying in an encyclopedic voice that it "is considered an authoratative source". 2/ I think this needs to be revisited over time as it seems to me that SOHR is getting less rather than more reliable over time. The description here cites a 2015 McClatchy report that says SOHR is "considered the most authoritative tracker of violence", noting that the reporter has verified two of their stories. The source also says SOHR is "the only group that routinely attempts to categorize deaths according to whether the victims were civilians, rebels or government fighters", which is not true now, as both SNHR and the VDC do now. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 13:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC) If we think SOHR still is considered authoritative, can we give a more recent source saying so? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 13:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Like I said, the description was used as per the cited RS and I think SOHR has been revisited a dozen times at least (if not more) with a general consensus establishing the guidelines for its usage on Wikipedia. If you would wish to reword the sentence so the expression is sourced more clearly to McClatchy and 2015 I have no objection and would be appropriate I think. SNHR (which we are using in the "civilian deaths" section) continues to only report civilian deaths on a monthly basis. VDC (also used in "civilian deaths"), which only made a breakdown between combatants and non-combatants in its monthly reports (not who belonged to which side), has not made a new update since November and have stated that they will not make a new update before the end of 2021. They have also removed their fatalities list from their site, so its no longer possible to use any overall data from the VDC. EkoGraf ( talk) 21:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Ok, interesting topic here. SOHR is not the only "real" source for reporting the Syrian Civil War (SCW) dead or events, but there are instances of SOHR being close to the truth more than other sources. Is a Anti-Assad source that's clear, and a pro- rebel source but since opp. forces are a wide array of actors. We can say is the most Western style media covering the SCW. I will proceed to give some instances of SOHR giving accurate info regarding casualties and losses. Take for instance the Baylun strike, when the event was reported by worldwide MSM, SOHR outright said that 34 Turkish soldiers were killed. Turkey did not said how many of it's soldiers died in the following hours and days, the Hatay governor gave increasing numbers of dead from 20 to 30. A year have passed and what we know is that 34 Turkish soldiers died that day. Regarding the last US strikes (Biden adm.) Reuters cited 17 dead at regional hospitals/health centers, SOHR reported 22. The PMU group Kataib Hezbollah reported 1 killed, 4 wounded. Is different but at least SOHR reported a number close to Reuters. Regarding past events SOHR have made errors, some gruesome for example the Aleppo prision breach that was a terrible fake news report. But this happened in the opening years of the war. I have contacted the head of the SOHR by social media, because of typographic error, he corrected his casualty table the same day. It's obvious, he is a simple human, most likely a activist with many contacts within Syrian Rebels. Mr.User200 ( talk) 01:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC) reply

Some comments about the user EkoGraf's the recent reversion of sourced contents and its edit summary:

1) GCR2P has been updating its article on Syria. The last update of the article was on November 2023. ^[1] Even if it is assumed that they GCR2P is not updating the estimate, there is no reason to not include the estimate. (casualties in the war are only increasing as time passes) Moreover, dont insert an obviously biased intro into the page like "estimates by pro-opposition activist groups". An intro like that in the lede, seriously? None of the other war casualties pages have such an intro.

2) EkoGraf also misrepresented the SOHR estimate's number of deaths documented by name as the "lower death toll" and SOHR estimate's overall death toll as the "higher death toll", speculating that SOHR is having a range of death tally.

However, the SOHR article is literally titled " Nearly 614,000 persons killed since the onset of the revolution in March 2011" and states:

"The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) has documented by names the death of 503,064 people since the outbreak of the Syrian Revolution out of an overall death toll of 613,407 people whose death has been verified by SOHR in the past 12 years."

So what EkoGraf inserted was original research

3) Also, EkoGraf described Syrian Network for Human Rights as "pro-opposition" without backing it up with reliable sources. SNHR is widely described as an "independent NGO" by academic and encyclopaedic sources. ^[2]

Quote from " Routledge Handbook of Sport in the Middle East"

"...investigations conducted by sports publications like ESPN The Magazine and independent non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) suggest that the country’s general division was replicated inside the team, ..."

Just because some war monitor is not pro-government, doesnt mean it is pro-opposition. Shadowwarrior8 ( talk) 11:38, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Also, citations from various secondary sources have also asserted that SOHR's death-toll estimate is more than 600,000.

"According to estimates from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, more than 600,000 people have been killed since the start of the war." ^[3]

" The Making of the Modern Middle East: A Personal History" (Bowen, Jeremy) (2022) Publisher: Pan Macmillan

A monitoring group based in the UK called the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported that 600,000 people had been killed by June 2021.

Shadowwarrior8 ( talk) 15:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Shadowwarrior8: 1. GCR2P has been updating its article on Syria, but it has not been updating its estimate of the death toll. I provided an archived link of the article's May 2021 version (which you removed) which even back then says the same estimate. Just please check the archived link. So saying that the estimate (as you wrote) is as of December 2022 or March 2023, is innacurate and a misrepresentation, since they made the estimate back in May 2021. Further, there is already a mention of the GCR2P estimate in the third paragraph of the lead and mentioning it again in the 1st as well is redundant and undue weight. As a compromise, if you wish, we can mention of the GCR2P estimate in the 1st as well, but it needs to correctly state that the figure is as of May 2021 (as it is), just like we state the UN figure is as of March 2021 (although I still think mentioning a figure twice in the lead is unnecessary and unbalanced). As for the part "estimates by pro-opposition activist groups", that was originally placed by another editor in the lead, not me, and I agreed with it, since the SOHR (whose figures we are using) is described by reliable sources as a pro-opposition group [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. As per that editor's reasoning, Wikipedia readers need to know if a source is pro-government or pro-opposition (which I agree). As compromise, I would have no objection to leave "war monitors" the general description of the sources in the first sentence of the lead, but when we talk about SOHR specifically, as per reliable sources, it needs to be continued to be described as "pro-opposition".

2. The presentation of SOHR's figures as a lower and higher range has been upheld for over a decade in this article and other Syria-related articles and used in such a manner by a number of editors (not just me) and no other editor has had a problem with that or called it original research until now. As a compromise, we can use the same method agreed by editors at the Russian-Ukrainian war article. Presenting the higher figure, while mentioning the lower figure in brackets beside it as the one confirmed by names. If you wish to discuss further rewording, I am open to it.

3. The description of the Syrian Network for Human Rights as "pro-opposition" was also added by the other editor (not me) years ago and I agreed with that based on the same reasoning as before. However, despite the SNHR showing pro-opposition language, unlike SOHR, reliable sources have not described it as such. So, if you wish, we can remove the "pro-opposition" label.

Pinging some of the other editors involved in Syrian-war related articles @ Ecrusized:@ Cinderella157:@ RopeTricks:@ Nihlus1:@ Illegitimate Barrister:@ Cengo-1992:@ Applodion: to way in on the issue. EkoGraf ( talk) 15:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ EkoGraf

1. EkoGraf: "As a compromise, if you wish, we can mention of the GCR2P estimate in the 1st as well, but it needs to correctly state that the figure is as of May 2021.. As compromise, I would have no objection to leave "war monitors" the general description of the sources in the first sentence of the lead, but when we talk about SOHR specifically, as per reliable sources, it needs to be continued to be described as "pro-opposition"."

I'm okay with this compromise solution. (which you have already inserted in the lede intro)

2. I've presented with secondary sources confirming that overall death toll of SOHR estimate is above 600,000. You cant now pretend that there is a "range" in SOHR estimates, EkoGraf.

EkoGraf: "If you wish to discuss further rewording, I am open to it."

I dont view your new wording in the table as problematic. I only had a dispute over the previous presentation of the death-toll estimate as a range, which was clear original research.

3. EkoGraf: "So, if you wish, we can remove the "pro-opposition" label."

Fine.

I hope we've reached a solution here. Shadowwarrior8 ( talk) 16:17, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Shadowwarrior8: I did not "pretend", like I said, it was a range that was agreed upon by multiple editors for a decade and was not seen by anybody as "original research". In any case, glad you agree to the compromise wording now (although I still think mentioning the same figures twice in the lead is redundant). Anyways, cheers and happy editing! EkoGraf ( talk) 16:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Sorted? Cinderella157 ( talk) 11:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Cinderella157: Seems to be, thanks! EkoGraf ( talk) 13:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply