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 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
This line in the infobox is a bit confusing, considering the Iraqi Insurgency is called "Spillover of the Syrian Civil War" on its own article. It basically makes an endless "see also" loop. I'm guessing this confusion is because it is referring to two different Iraqi insurgences, the one from 2003-2011 and the one from 2013ish-ongoing. Any thoughts?-- Monochrome_ Monitor 02:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, that is a false generalization. Different factions are stronger depending on the region, I would encourage you to stick to WP:RS and read beyond the headlines. And thanks for your opinionated (and unsolicited) screed FunkMonk, always a pleasure. Nulla Taciti ( talk) 12:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Also I think we're getting off topic. This was about the Syrian Civil War being attributed to the Iraqi Insurgency (2011-ongoing), which has since been changed. -- Monochrome_ Monitor 16:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I removed the map that was published by the White House on 30 August 2013. Most of the neighborhoods reportedly affected only reflected movement of patients (see the note under the map) . Affected neighborhoods were Zamalka and nearby Ein Tarma in Eastern Ghouta, and Muadamiyat al-Sham in Western Ghouta. Ref. UN and HRW reports. See also Ghouta_chemical_attack#The_attacks and Talk:Ghouta_chemical_attack#Info_box_map. Erlbaeko ( talk) 09:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Tons of sources confirmed that since 2013 http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/New-UN-report-reveals-collaboration-between-Israel-and-Syrian-rebels-383926 http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/02/israel-syria-rebels-jihad-sunni-shiite-golan-heights.html http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2014/1207/UN-reports-Israeli-support-for-Syria-rebels — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC) http://www.businessinsider.com/its-not-too-late-to-empower-the-moderate-rebels-of-syria-2014-10 http://www.timesofisrael.com/syrian-rebel-commander-says-he-collaborated-with-israel/ -- LogFTW ( talk) 16:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The Jews killed severals Syrians troops and helping Al Qaeda take severals positions in south of Syria they shot down warplane too - Israel must be added in the Insurgent side --
LogFTW (
talk) 15:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I've seen claims that the differing directions of shadows in the commonly circulated pictures show that they were doctored, and that Iran is trying to promote the idea of Syrian non-gov forces being Israeli-backed. No idea how true. Banak ( talk) 12:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
There's enough evidence to say that Israel has provided non-lethal support to rebels. This is clear, but if I understand it well, in the infobox we are including only those who provide armaments or direct support in military actions. These two sources claim that lethal support also has been provided:
For me it is enough to include Israel in the infobox, perhaps with an (alleged) note. -- Emesik ( talk) 21:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Israel doesn't support Insurgents, Israel fights against Assad, and as result, it helps the Insurgents. Isael should be added to the infobox. Guyhaddad ( talk) 10:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@ FunkMonk: This report [2] gives a comprehensive account of support Israel is giving to Nusra, with links to various reliable news sources who also corroborate this. One notable report is by UNDOF where their observers saw and I quote “Israeli soldiers ‘handing over two boxes to armed members of the opposition’ from the Israeli-occupied side to the Syrian-controlled side” on one occasion. Also, one other source notes “the remnants of bombs with labels in Hebrew were found” in the area of conflict. So, based on all of these reports, I also support adding Israel to the infobox in the supported by section (as most editors here seem to agree). EkoGraf ( talk) 16:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
References
There is a real anachronism in putting Yemen into the infobox:
It is hence evident that while there is some evidence to put Houthis in the infobox, putting Yemen is clearly misleading. GreyShark ( dibra) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Despite all the evidence that IS are carrying out an increasing number outrages and terror attacks, Wikipedia continue to maintain the fiction that 'vast majority of the abuses having been committed by the Syrian government'. Given widespread reports of events on ground, could not this one-sided comment be corrected to reflect the truth of what is really happening inside Syria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.253.9 ( talk) 21:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
"Seven countries, in five years"
Since there are plans to take out seven countries in five years (starting with Iraq, and moving to Syria), then someone clearly needs to paint Assad as black as possible. And yet, bit-by-bit, the apologists for the appalling, murderous tyranny that is FSA (and IS) will be put to shame by the simple facts. But for now, such people are unlikely to admit that vast majority of terror stories have been produced by them. For the people behind the 'Gay Girl' YourTube videos - and other faked stories - are not goimg to put their hands up and say, 'fair cop, it was us!' So how likely is it that people involved in Black-Ops would give the Syrian government a fair break? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.247.90 ( talk) 20:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I edited out the non-free File:Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar.jpg from the article per WP:NFCCE because it did not have the separate, specific non-free use rationale required for this particular article per WP:NFCC#10c. I am not sure if there are other such images being used in this template, but they should be removed as well if they are lacking the required non-free use rationale. Moreover, non-free images are only supposed to be used in the article mainspace per WP:NFCC#9 so use only other pages (e.g., userpages, drafts, etc.) is not allowed. So, any non-free images being used in this template which do not satisfy all 10 of the criteria for non-free use should be removed too. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 21:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Ariha is Nusra territory, should be grey.
45.58.86.28 ( talk) 23:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
here. 191.185.206.216 ( talk) 13:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
So, even as a Westener, I have to say this article is extremely politically advantageous for mainly America and the Gulf. It hurts the credibility of Wikipedia and turns it into another propaganda tool. The carefully picked focus points have been to paint Assad as the sole initiator. A lone president cannot and would not on his own keep his country free from global opposition for 4 years. The attempts to say Iran and Russia are behind it remind me of the Cold War. The Gulf and America have long opposed the Russian-aligned forces of Iran, Syria and Shi'ites, this much we know. We know that the (Sunni) Free Syrian Army was largely assembled and trained by the former countries. When an ISIS pops up and soon covers nearly all of the FSA territory, is this not noteworthy?
Anyhow, many of these sources are tabloids and sensationalist newspapers. And really, two Voice of America references? We might as well credit the US government for that one. Then maybe after that we could at least globalize it a bit. Bataaf van Oranje ( talk) 14:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
"When an ISIS pops up and soon covers nearly all of the FSA territory, is this not noteworthy?" You're damn right it's noteworthy, that's why there are entire sections of articles devoted to the subject: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Allegations of Syrian support. Please actually read around the subject before going on another WP:CONSPIRACY tinged screed. Nulla Taciti ( talk) 17:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Contrary to conventional wisdom: https://www.ctc.usma.edu/?p=35407 FunkMonk ( talk) 01:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
This is not indicated in the info at the top. It should be.
Here is an article now confirming that supposed "allies" of the West are now openly arming al-Qaeda (probably because there is no truly 'moderate' opposition; what a joke that was. Where is Sopher?)
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/15/8771999/this-is-how-crazy-syria-policy-has-gotten — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.18.64 ( talk) 14:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
204.197.185.78 ( talk) 21:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The article is not neutrally worded.
For instance, take this statement here:
"Rebel advances led to government and Hezbollah morale plunging dramatically."
The link goes to stratfor. There is no mention at all of the linked-in statement. So why is this in an article like that? That is pure propaganda. 2A02:8388:1600:6900:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 ( talk) 18:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Syrian American Medical Society (March 2015), Slow Death: Life and Death in Syrian Communities Under Siege, p. 5.
-- YeOldeGentleman ( talk) 00:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems strange to have Turkey in the same column as Kurds, because Turkey is also bombing some Kurd positions. Although, on the other hand, they are also fighting IS, which is currently the main enemy of Kurds. -- 46.234.78.146 ( talk) 19:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The title of the page is not good. It insinuates as if there is a civil war, as in - syrians versus syrians. While this is surely partially correct, it also is correct without a doubt that foreign fighters participate. It does not matter who, it does not matter where, but this means that OUTSIDERS fight in a "civil war", which makes the term inconsistent and not logical.
I suggest a more neutral term. As it stands, the article is extremely one sided in favour of what certain other non-syrian governments describe or wish to convey, and while I can understand that wikipedia does not want to adopt the position of the syrian government, wikipedia should also be NEUTRAL and not use terms which are technically not correct. Who decided on the term "Syrian Civil War" anyway, corporate media? 2A02:8388:1600:6900:D9FD:1933:A841:5320 ( talk) 13:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how to edit these pages, but I know that the chemical weapons statements are false. The only record of chemical weapons has been debunked as a hoax by bbc. As in bbc staged the entire thing. Do a quick search on the net, there is plenty of evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.41.51 ( talk) 18:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or country. Clearly this is what is happening in Syria (there is no fight between two different countries in any traditional sense. No country has invaded Syria and Syria has invaded no one. Outside assistance means nothing as it is common. Legacypac ( talk) 09:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
How about the term "revolution" or "revolutionary war"?? I am a Syrian, and I know for a fact that millions of Syrians from all parties of the conflict know that the main goal of the conflict was and still is to remove the government of Bashar Al-Assad, which is the definition of Revolution. Please refer to this page "difference between revolution and civil war for more info on difference between civil war and revolution. I quote from the cited source: "The most important difference between a revolution and a civil war is that civilians directly revolt against the government in a revolution whereas factions wage a war against each other in a civil war" Majd alshoufi ( talk) 20:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
References
there is no rebel presence in Latakia governorate, as shown on the map
207.35.219.34 ( talk) 20:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I've been fact-checking the claim that the Yemeni Houthis are fighting in Syria. All the web sources claiming that the fight or fought in Syria, including the one given, seem to be based on this 2013 article, where the information is credited to "a (Yemeni) official source, speaking on condition of anonymity". I think this is not a reliable enough encyclopedic source and that, until better sources show up, we should delete the claim in the infobox as well as the "See also : Yemeni civil war" because the two are not directly related. Yet, personally I know nothing about the Houthis, does anyone here know more ? (you can talk with me on wp:fr)-- GrandEscogriffe ( talk) 20:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Also, when this point is settled would someone kindly explain me how to edit the infobox ? Thank you
Israel should be in the "non-lethal aid" column: "Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Monday that Israel has been providing aid to Syrian rebels, thus keeping the Druze in Syria out of immediate danger. Israeli officials have previously balked at confirming on the record that the country has been helping forces that are fighting to overthrow Syrian President Bashar" [6] It is not even controversial by now, yet some editors refuse to add it due to some outdated "consensus" [7] based on old sources from back when Israel still denied they were helping the rebels, and on the conclusion that bombing Syrian forces did not make them part of the civil war (which is irrelevant to the non-lethal aid). Facts have changed, so that "consensus" is utterly irrelevant now. Now we even have North Korea as a "supporter", fer Chrissake, yet Netanyahu's hands are all over the place. FunkMonk ( talk) 18:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Since infoboxes can now apparently have 5 columns (see Wars of the Three Kingdoms), should the columns be revised to 1.) The Syrian govt., 2.) The Free Syrian Army & allies, 3.) ISIS, 4.) The other Islamists & 5.) The Kurds, w/the foreign allies of each faction placed in the relevant columns? Unsigned comment by Blaylockjam10 at 10:13, 11 July 2015
Its not listed on the map what the purple dots indicate. Do they mean a besieged town, or a destroyed one? I think that should be made clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.15.124 ( talk) 02:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear
Greyshark,
Please read and scroll carefully;
1. The points you are missing about Syrian Turkmen Brigades;
— a.
Syrian Turkmen Brigades are a part of
Syrian Opposition, just like
Free Syrian Army,
Sham Legion, etc. as a SEPERATE organization.
References
— b.
Syrian Turkmen Brigades are the military wing of the Syrian Turkmens' official governing body
Syrian Turkmen Assembly, just like the
Syriac Military of the Syriacs' official governing body
Syriac Union Party.
References
— c.
Syrian Turkmen Brigades fight as a seperate organization in alliance with the
Free Syrian Army, not as a part of them. Just like
Sham Legion does. And just like
Syriac Military fights in alliance with
YPG, not as a part of them.
References
Conclusion on Part 1: Syrian Turkmen Brigades are a seperate organization and a part of the Syrian Opposition, which fights in alliance with other Opposition forces like the FSA and Sham Legion. And also are supported by Turkish government and with the latest safezone agreements may respectively be so by US government.
2. Turkey is targeting ISIL while not allowing PYD to advance;
Turkey is targetting ISIL. Even though this can sound as helping PYD, Turkey has officially stated that it does not want Kurds to advance several times and are targetting ISIL to create the safezone in northern Syria, that Turkey demanded for so long, not allowing both Kurds and Islamists in the area.
References
References on Safezone For You to Understand Why Turkey Doesn't Want Both IS and PYD Better
Conclusion on Part 2; Turkey is a part of the coalition "against ISIL", not "supporting Kurdish forces", instead aiming moderate rebels like Turkmens and allied Arabic rebels and also displaced Turkmen and Arabs to be given access and possibly the control to the safezone. If you want to add Turkey under the coalition row within the infobox. That must not be under the Kurdish row, but the Opposition row (especially Syrian Turkmen Brigades and their allies).
So, all the information I submit are resourced variously, including both academical papers and latest news from over the world. Read this entry and from now on, please do not delete the resourced information and change it towards what you believe or want.
Thank you in advance for your understanding. Have a nice day.
Berkaysnklf (
talk), 11 August 2015, 13:26 (UTC)
First, its not my fault if there are not a lot English sources. Tough as you can relate Turkish sources will naturally be more interested in news about Turkmen than the foreigners'. And the Turkish resources I gave you are really various streching from Al Jazeera Turk(neutral), Aksam(neutral), Daily Zaman(anti-gov), Sabah(pro-gov) to local newspapers and so the information I gave is highly reliable. And about the numbers, the latest numbers are in Turkish; I told you MIT gathered Turkmen leaders and Turkmen Assembly is making the Brigades their official wing by also creating a official military council. Sources say "about 13.000 (with about 5.000 had at least one week military training), fighting in Turkmen inhabited areas will eventually rise to above 15.00 with these latest moves". So the sources are yes in Turkish but they are variable and therefore highly reliable for anyone as these make the headlines in our country because Turkmens are a really important figure for Turkey.
And thanks for creating the support part in Opposition column, though Turkey is still seen supporting the PKK and allied militias. Please read the resources I've sent you about these. They are mostly in English. Turkey is currently fighting with both PKK and ISIL, and not wanting PYD to advance. Safe-Zone agreement with USA is for kicking ISIL out of region blocking PYD moving into region and making Turkmen forces the controller of their own inhabited regions while also placing the Arab and Turkmen refugees into the zone. So I've changed the infobox which is (as resourced) the most true look. Thanks and have a nice day. Berkaysnklf ( talk) 17 August 2015, 00:47 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.57.16.104 ( talk)
What about the 2014 National Intelligence Organisation scandal in Turkey and trying to add that to the support of ISIS and what about the support of Al-Nusra also from Saudi Arabia and Qatar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.64.2 ( talk) 16:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The lorries scandal is about Turkey supporting the Opposition and mostly Turkmen fighters, not ISIS. The trucks were also captured near the border crossing to the Turkmen-controlled areas. Berkaysnklf ( talk) 20 August 2015, 10:49 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.57.41.227 ( talk)
Every week, I read this article, and the percentage of Sunni Arabs, the decrease ! It was 67 and then 56% and now 45% ! I think in the next month will become 30% !!! What is strange is happening here ! 12% Sunni Kurds and Sunni Arabs 45% this means the number of Sunnis, only 57% ! I think that's fraud rate of not less than Sunnis in any way from the 75% -- Disappeared ( talk) 20:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Syrian Turkmen (also referred to as Turks in Syria, Syrian Turkoman or Syrian Turks) (Turkish: Suriye Türkleri) are Syrian citizens of Turkish descent. They and their ancestors have lived in present-day Syria since Ottoman times
Syrian Turkmens population 1.500.000-3.500.000 [10]
SYRIAN TURKMENS: POLITICAL MOVEMENTS AND MILITARY STRUCTURE [11]
Syrian Turkmen: In Pursuit of a New Syrian Identity [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.178.47.233 ( talk) 21:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Various reports, mainly originating from the rebel SOHR and pro-government Al Masdar suggest that ISIL terrorists are having another go at Deir Ezzor and have been attacking the city multiple times in the last weeks. Why hasn't anybody created the article yet? LlegóelBigotee ( talk) 19:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Can editors familiar with the history of the war take a look at the thread Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#"Allegations of Syrian support" Diagram. Thanks. Greg Kaye 17:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Said to be of “Anti-Assad protests in Baniyas April 2011”, the picture was taken from a pro-FSA website called ‘Syria-Frames-Of-Freedom’. Given this, and the lack background information, is it safe to include such a questionable image in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.51.168 ( talk) 14:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I did not see anything in the background about US involvement on this conflict. Everybody knows that this war was caused because of Bush invasion to Iraq. While the Iraq Army was about 200 thousands solders, in just 2 weeks the US took Saddam out. Of these 200K trained troops, where did they go? OFC, ISIS and rebels in Syria. We need to report the truth - not just brainwashing from the media. Dafranca ( talk) 13:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Over 7,600,000 internally displaced (accuarding to UNHCR by July 2015) Over 4,000,000 refugees (accuarding to UNHCR by July 2015)[65][66][67]
make it "according" and iff(iff means if and only if) you correct that mistake, then delete my text here - thanx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.220.197 ( talk) 07:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Khaleejian ( talk) 15:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The map shows rebels have a portion of Latakia governorate. This is not correct. 45.58.90.108 ( talk) 17:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
About map accuracy... can someone fix or explain those three purple dots near Damascus? What are they? Thanks. 91.148.94.24 ( talk) 10:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
A variety of news sources now note the supposed presence and participation of Russian troops in the war. How reliable are they? Here's an example: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4696268,00.html How valid are these reports? Ynetnews is the website of Israel's biggest newspaper, and it's been parroted by a whole lot of other papers like the Washington Times, so this can't be a complete fabrication, right?-- Nihlus1 ( talk) 05:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
This is the best source I found so far, unfortunately WP:OR: http://ruslanleviev.livejournal.com/38649.html So, basically, Russian marines are there, military air traffic controllers probably too. Also, there's some Russian ground equipment as well as drones but it's still unknown whether Russian soldiers are actually fighting. No hurry here, this will sort out very soon. -- Emesik ( talk) 12:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Moscow confirmed it had "experts" on the ground and Reuters via a Lebanese source said "The Russians are no longer just advisors," one of them said. "The Russians have decided to join the war against terrorism.".
[15] --
LeVivsky (
ಠ_ಠ) 17:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
If you go to the liveuamap.com about Syria there is a source from today that says that Russia has added 1.700 soldiers to those already present at the Tartus naval base. It also says that 29 Russian jets now are stationed in Latakia airport. We need to update the infobox. ~ Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.141.138 ( talk) 22:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
"Russian Casualties" There is information in the info table about 103+ Russian troops being killed in the conflict after a rocket attack – referring to a news article on this site http://antikor.com.ua/articles/61749-tela_103_russkih_voennyh_pogibshih_v_rezuljtate_raketnogo_obstrela_v_sirijskoj_provintsii_rakka ... Yet, the article itself is barely a reprint of an earlier Sep 05 RIA article http://ria.ru/world/20150905/1231510997.html#ixzz3ktw2RJea relating to war in Yemen, with the words Saudi changed to Russian, Yemen changed to Syria and so on. The news article does't itself refer to any primary or secondary source information, and is itself located in the Ukrainian internet segment – which leads me to believe that information in the article is given with parody/disinformation purposes in mind. Hence, info about, the military casualties for Russia needs to be removed from the Syrian Civil War summary table's Losses section. -- Lapkonium ( talk) 14:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
References
@ Rajmaan: your addition of East Turkestan Islamic Movement seems poorly sourced, and maybe even completely unrelated. There is no mention of the Uyghur group being a major force in Syria, and you sourced don't seem to support it well. Please note that adding belligerents to the infobox should first get a consensus on the talk page. GreyShark ( dibra) 05:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
This war involves many international belligerents, and I don't think it can be classified as a civil war any more. I don't know what kind of war to classify it as, so how about renaming this page to "Syrian War"? -- BurritoBazooka ( talk) 20:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
What about Chinese diplomatic support of Assad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SibHunter ( talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
It is an amazingly complex war with many sides and factions and outside forces intervening. WWII was simpler in some ways, with really two big groups of countries fighting each other. Legacypac ( talk) 22:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
This article http://charter97.org/en/news/2013/3/18/66726/ claims that Belarus supports Assad in this war because it sold some quantity of weaponry to Syria at any point between 2008 and 2012. Surely it is not enough evidence to place Belarus among the supporters of the government in this conflict? Any chance Belarus can be removed from the list? 93.84.53.68 ( talk) 18:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
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 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
This line in the infobox is a bit confusing, considering the Iraqi Insurgency is called "Spillover of the Syrian Civil War" on its own article. It basically makes an endless "see also" loop. I'm guessing this confusion is because it is referring to two different Iraqi insurgences, the one from 2003-2011 and the one from 2013ish-ongoing. Any thoughts?-- Monochrome_ Monitor 02:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, that is a false generalization. Different factions are stronger depending on the region, I would encourage you to stick to WP:RS and read beyond the headlines. And thanks for your opinionated (and unsolicited) screed FunkMonk, always a pleasure. Nulla Taciti ( talk) 12:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Also I think we're getting off topic. This was about the Syrian Civil War being attributed to the Iraqi Insurgency (2011-ongoing), which has since been changed. -- Monochrome_ Monitor 16:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I removed the map that was published by the White House on 30 August 2013. Most of the neighborhoods reportedly affected only reflected movement of patients (see the note under the map) . Affected neighborhoods were Zamalka and nearby Ein Tarma in Eastern Ghouta, and Muadamiyat al-Sham in Western Ghouta. Ref. UN and HRW reports. See also Ghouta_chemical_attack#The_attacks and Talk:Ghouta_chemical_attack#Info_box_map. Erlbaeko ( talk) 09:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Tons of sources confirmed that since 2013 http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/New-UN-report-reveals-collaboration-between-Israel-and-Syrian-rebels-383926 http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/02/israel-syria-rebels-jihad-sunni-shiite-golan-heights.html http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2014/1207/UN-reports-Israeli-support-for-Syria-rebels — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC) http://www.businessinsider.com/its-not-too-late-to-empower-the-moderate-rebels-of-syria-2014-10 http://www.timesofisrael.com/syrian-rebel-commander-says-he-collaborated-with-israel/ -- LogFTW ( talk) 16:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The Jews killed severals Syrians troops and helping Al Qaeda take severals positions in south of Syria they shot down warplane too - Israel must be added in the Insurgent side --
LogFTW (
talk) 15:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
I've seen claims that the differing directions of shadows in the commonly circulated pictures show that they were doctored, and that Iran is trying to promote the idea of Syrian non-gov forces being Israeli-backed. No idea how true. Banak ( talk) 12:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
There's enough evidence to say that Israel has provided non-lethal support to rebels. This is clear, but if I understand it well, in the infobox we are including only those who provide armaments or direct support in military actions. These two sources claim that lethal support also has been provided:
For me it is enough to include Israel in the infobox, perhaps with an (alleged) note. -- Emesik ( talk) 21:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Israel doesn't support Insurgents, Israel fights against Assad, and as result, it helps the Insurgents. Isael should be added to the infobox. Guyhaddad ( talk) 10:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@ FunkMonk: This report [2] gives a comprehensive account of support Israel is giving to Nusra, with links to various reliable news sources who also corroborate this. One notable report is by UNDOF where their observers saw and I quote “Israeli soldiers ‘handing over two boxes to armed members of the opposition’ from the Israeli-occupied side to the Syrian-controlled side” on one occasion. Also, one other source notes “the remnants of bombs with labels in Hebrew were found” in the area of conflict. So, based on all of these reports, I also support adding Israel to the infobox in the supported by section (as most editors here seem to agree). EkoGraf ( talk) 16:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
References
There is a real anachronism in putting Yemen into the infobox:
It is hence evident that while there is some evidence to put Houthis in the infobox, putting Yemen is clearly misleading. GreyShark ( dibra) 10:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Despite all the evidence that IS are carrying out an increasing number outrages and terror attacks, Wikipedia continue to maintain the fiction that 'vast majority of the abuses having been committed by the Syrian government'. Given widespread reports of events on ground, could not this one-sided comment be corrected to reflect the truth of what is really happening inside Syria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.253.9 ( talk) 21:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
"Seven countries, in five years"
Since there are plans to take out seven countries in five years (starting with Iraq, and moving to Syria), then someone clearly needs to paint Assad as black as possible. And yet, bit-by-bit, the apologists for the appalling, murderous tyranny that is FSA (and IS) will be put to shame by the simple facts. But for now, such people are unlikely to admit that vast majority of terror stories have been produced by them. For the people behind the 'Gay Girl' YourTube videos - and other faked stories - are not goimg to put their hands up and say, 'fair cop, it was us!' So how likely is it that people involved in Black-Ops would give the Syrian government a fair break? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.247.90 ( talk) 20:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I edited out the non-free File:Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar.jpg from the article per WP:NFCCE because it did not have the separate, specific non-free use rationale required for this particular article per WP:NFCC#10c. I am not sure if there are other such images being used in this template, but they should be removed as well if they are lacking the required non-free use rationale. Moreover, non-free images are only supposed to be used in the article mainspace per WP:NFCC#9 so use only other pages (e.g., userpages, drafts, etc.) is not allowed. So, any non-free images being used in this template which do not satisfy all 10 of the criteria for non-free use should be removed too. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 21:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Ariha is Nusra territory, should be grey.
45.58.86.28 ( talk) 23:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
here. 191.185.206.216 ( talk) 13:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
So, even as a Westener, I have to say this article is extremely politically advantageous for mainly America and the Gulf. It hurts the credibility of Wikipedia and turns it into another propaganda tool. The carefully picked focus points have been to paint Assad as the sole initiator. A lone president cannot and would not on his own keep his country free from global opposition for 4 years. The attempts to say Iran and Russia are behind it remind me of the Cold War. The Gulf and America have long opposed the Russian-aligned forces of Iran, Syria and Shi'ites, this much we know. We know that the (Sunni) Free Syrian Army was largely assembled and trained by the former countries. When an ISIS pops up and soon covers nearly all of the FSA territory, is this not noteworthy?
Anyhow, many of these sources are tabloids and sensationalist newspapers. And really, two Voice of America references? We might as well credit the US government for that one. Then maybe after that we could at least globalize it a bit. Bataaf van Oranje ( talk) 14:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
"When an ISIS pops up and soon covers nearly all of the FSA territory, is this not noteworthy?" You're damn right it's noteworthy, that's why there are entire sections of articles devoted to the subject: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Allegations of Syrian support. Please actually read around the subject before going on another WP:CONSPIRACY tinged screed. Nulla Taciti ( talk) 17:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Contrary to conventional wisdom: https://www.ctc.usma.edu/?p=35407 FunkMonk ( talk) 01:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
This is not indicated in the info at the top. It should be.
Here is an article now confirming that supposed "allies" of the West are now openly arming al-Qaeda (probably because there is no truly 'moderate' opposition; what a joke that was. Where is Sopher?)
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/15/8771999/this-is-how-crazy-syria-policy-has-gotten — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.18.64 ( talk) 14:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
204.197.185.78 ( talk) 21:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The article is not neutrally worded.
For instance, take this statement here:
"Rebel advances led to government and Hezbollah morale plunging dramatically."
The link goes to stratfor. There is no mention at all of the linked-in statement. So why is this in an article like that? That is pure propaganda. 2A02:8388:1600:6900:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 ( talk) 18:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Syrian American Medical Society (March 2015), Slow Death: Life and Death in Syrian Communities Under Siege, p. 5.
-- YeOldeGentleman ( talk) 00:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It seems strange to have Turkey in the same column as Kurds, because Turkey is also bombing some Kurd positions. Although, on the other hand, they are also fighting IS, which is currently the main enemy of Kurds. -- 46.234.78.146 ( talk) 19:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
The title of the page is not good. It insinuates as if there is a civil war, as in - syrians versus syrians. While this is surely partially correct, it also is correct without a doubt that foreign fighters participate. It does not matter who, it does not matter where, but this means that OUTSIDERS fight in a "civil war", which makes the term inconsistent and not logical.
I suggest a more neutral term. As it stands, the article is extremely one sided in favour of what certain other non-syrian governments describe or wish to convey, and while I can understand that wikipedia does not want to adopt the position of the syrian government, wikipedia should also be NEUTRAL and not use terms which are technically not correct. Who decided on the term "Syrian Civil War" anyway, corporate media? 2A02:8388:1600:6900:D9FD:1933:A841:5320 ( talk) 13:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how to edit these pages, but I know that the chemical weapons statements are false. The only record of chemical weapons has been debunked as a hoax by bbc. As in bbc staged the entire thing. Do a quick search on the net, there is plenty of evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.41.51 ( talk) 18:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
A civil war is a war between organized groups within the same state or country. Clearly this is what is happening in Syria (there is no fight between two different countries in any traditional sense. No country has invaded Syria and Syria has invaded no one. Outside assistance means nothing as it is common. Legacypac ( talk) 09:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
How about the term "revolution" or "revolutionary war"?? I am a Syrian, and I know for a fact that millions of Syrians from all parties of the conflict know that the main goal of the conflict was and still is to remove the government of Bashar Al-Assad, which is the definition of Revolution. Please refer to this page "difference between revolution and civil war for more info on difference between civil war and revolution. I quote from the cited source: "The most important difference between a revolution and a civil war is that civilians directly revolt against the government in a revolution whereas factions wage a war against each other in a civil war" Majd alshoufi ( talk) 20:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
References
there is no rebel presence in Latakia governorate, as shown on the map
207.35.219.34 ( talk) 20:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I've been fact-checking the claim that the Yemeni Houthis are fighting in Syria. All the web sources claiming that the fight or fought in Syria, including the one given, seem to be based on this 2013 article, where the information is credited to "a (Yemeni) official source, speaking on condition of anonymity". I think this is not a reliable enough encyclopedic source and that, until better sources show up, we should delete the claim in the infobox as well as the "See also : Yemeni civil war" because the two are not directly related. Yet, personally I know nothing about the Houthis, does anyone here know more ? (you can talk with me on wp:fr)-- GrandEscogriffe ( talk) 20:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Also, when this point is settled would someone kindly explain me how to edit the infobox ? Thank you
Israel should be in the "non-lethal aid" column: "Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Monday that Israel has been providing aid to Syrian rebels, thus keeping the Druze in Syria out of immediate danger. Israeli officials have previously balked at confirming on the record that the country has been helping forces that are fighting to overthrow Syrian President Bashar" [6] It is not even controversial by now, yet some editors refuse to add it due to some outdated "consensus" [7] based on old sources from back when Israel still denied they were helping the rebels, and on the conclusion that bombing Syrian forces did not make them part of the civil war (which is irrelevant to the non-lethal aid). Facts have changed, so that "consensus" is utterly irrelevant now. Now we even have North Korea as a "supporter", fer Chrissake, yet Netanyahu's hands are all over the place. FunkMonk ( talk) 18:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Since infoboxes can now apparently have 5 columns (see Wars of the Three Kingdoms), should the columns be revised to 1.) The Syrian govt., 2.) The Free Syrian Army & allies, 3.) ISIS, 4.) The other Islamists & 5.) The Kurds, w/the foreign allies of each faction placed in the relevant columns? Unsigned comment by Blaylockjam10 at 10:13, 11 July 2015
Its not listed on the map what the purple dots indicate. Do they mean a besieged town, or a destroyed one? I think that should be made clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.15.124 ( talk) 02:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear
Greyshark,
Please read and scroll carefully;
1. The points you are missing about Syrian Turkmen Brigades;
— a.
Syrian Turkmen Brigades are a part of
Syrian Opposition, just like
Free Syrian Army,
Sham Legion, etc. as a SEPERATE organization.
References
— b.
Syrian Turkmen Brigades are the military wing of the Syrian Turkmens' official governing body
Syrian Turkmen Assembly, just like the
Syriac Military of the Syriacs' official governing body
Syriac Union Party.
References
— c.
Syrian Turkmen Brigades fight as a seperate organization in alliance with the
Free Syrian Army, not as a part of them. Just like
Sham Legion does. And just like
Syriac Military fights in alliance with
YPG, not as a part of them.
References
Conclusion on Part 1: Syrian Turkmen Brigades are a seperate organization and a part of the Syrian Opposition, which fights in alliance with other Opposition forces like the FSA and Sham Legion. And also are supported by Turkish government and with the latest safezone agreements may respectively be so by US government.
2. Turkey is targeting ISIL while not allowing PYD to advance;
Turkey is targetting ISIL. Even though this can sound as helping PYD, Turkey has officially stated that it does not want Kurds to advance several times and are targetting ISIL to create the safezone in northern Syria, that Turkey demanded for so long, not allowing both Kurds and Islamists in the area.
References
References on Safezone For You to Understand Why Turkey Doesn't Want Both IS and PYD Better
Conclusion on Part 2; Turkey is a part of the coalition "against ISIL", not "supporting Kurdish forces", instead aiming moderate rebels like Turkmens and allied Arabic rebels and also displaced Turkmen and Arabs to be given access and possibly the control to the safezone. If you want to add Turkey under the coalition row within the infobox. That must not be under the Kurdish row, but the Opposition row (especially Syrian Turkmen Brigades and their allies).
So, all the information I submit are resourced variously, including both academical papers and latest news from over the world. Read this entry and from now on, please do not delete the resourced information and change it towards what you believe or want.
Thank you in advance for your understanding. Have a nice day.
Berkaysnklf (
talk), 11 August 2015, 13:26 (UTC)
First, its not my fault if there are not a lot English sources. Tough as you can relate Turkish sources will naturally be more interested in news about Turkmen than the foreigners'. And the Turkish resources I gave you are really various streching from Al Jazeera Turk(neutral), Aksam(neutral), Daily Zaman(anti-gov), Sabah(pro-gov) to local newspapers and so the information I gave is highly reliable. And about the numbers, the latest numbers are in Turkish; I told you MIT gathered Turkmen leaders and Turkmen Assembly is making the Brigades their official wing by also creating a official military council. Sources say "about 13.000 (with about 5.000 had at least one week military training), fighting in Turkmen inhabited areas will eventually rise to above 15.00 with these latest moves". So the sources are yes in Turkish but they are variable and therefore highly reliable for anyone as these make the headlines in our country because Turkmens are a really important figure for Turkey.
And thanks for creating the support part in Opposition column, though Turkey is still seen supporting the PKK and allied militias. Please read the resources I've sent you about these. They are mostly in English. Turkey is currently fighting with both PKK and ISIL, and not wanting PYD to advance. Safe-Zone agreement with USA is for kicking ISIL out of region blocking PYD moving into region and making Turkmen forces the controller of their own inhabited regions while also placing the Arab and Turkmen refugees into the zone. So I've changed the infobox which is (as resourced) the most true look. Thanks and have a nice day. Berkaysnklf ( talk) 17 August 2015, 00:47 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.57.16.104 ( talk)
What about the 2014 National Intelligence Organisation scandal in Turkey and trying to add that to the support of ISIS and what about the support of Al-Nusra also from Saudi Arabia and Qatar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.64.2 ( talk) 16:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The lorries scandal is about Turkey supporting the Opposition and mostly Turkmen fighters, not ISIS. The trucks were also captured near the border crossing to the Turkmen-controlled areas. Berkaysnklf ( talk) 20 August 2015, 10:49 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.57.41.227 ( talk)
Every week, I read this article, and the percentage of Sunni Arabs, the decrease ! It was 67 and then 56% and now 45% ! I think in the next month will become 30% !!! What is strange is happening here ! 12% Sunni Kurds and Sunni Arabs 45% this means the number of Sunnis, only 57% ! I think that's fraud rate of not less than Sunnis in any way from the 75% -- Disappeared ( talk) 20:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Syrian Turkmen (also referred to as Turks in Syria, Syrian Turkoman or Syrian Turks) (Turkish: Suriye Türkleri) are Syrian citizens of Turkish descent. They and their ancestors have lived in present-day Syria since Ottoman times
Syrian Turkmens population 1.500.000-3.500.000 [10]
SYRIAN TURKMENS: POLITICAL MOVEMENTS AND MILITARY STRUCTURE [11]
Syrian Turkmen: In Pursuit of a New Syrian Identity [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.178.47.233 ( talk) 21:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Various reports, mainly originating from the rebel SOHR and pro-government Al Masdar suggest that ISIL terrorists are having another go at Deir Ezzor and have been attacking the city multiple times in the last weeks. Why hasn't anybody created the article yet? LlegóelBigotee ( talk) 19:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Can editors familiar with the history of the war take a look at the thread Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#"Allegations of Syrian support" Diagram. Thanks. Greg Kaye 17:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Said to be of “Anti-Assad protests in Baniyas April 2011”, the picture was taken from a pro-FSA website called ‘Syria-Frames-Of-Freedom’. Given this, and the lack background information, is it safe to include such a questionable image in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.51.168 ( talk) 14:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
I did not see anything in the background about US involvement on this conflict. Everybody knows that this war was caused because of Bush invasion to Iraq. While the Iraq Army was about 200 thousands solders, in just 2 weeks the US took Saddam out. Of these 200K trained troops, where did they go? OFC, ISIS and rebels in Syria. We need to report the truth - not just brainwashing from the media. Dafranca ( talk) 13:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Over 7,600,000 internally displaced (accuarding to UNHCR by July 2015) Over 4,000,000 refugees (accuarding to UNHCR by July 2015)[65][66][67]
make it "according" and iff(iff means if and only if) you correct that mistake, then delete my text here - thanx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.220.197 ( talk) 07:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Khaleejian ( talk) 15:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The map shows rebels have a portion of Latakia governorate. This is not correct. 45.58.90.108 ( talk) 17:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
About map accuracy... can someone fix or explain those three purple dots near Damascus? What are they? Thanks. 91.148.94.24 ( talk) 10:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
A variety of news sources now note the supposed presence and participation of Russian troops in the war. How reliable are they? Here's an example: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4696268,00.html How valid are these reports? Ynetnews is the website of Israel's biggest newspaper, and it's been parroted by a whole lot of other papers like the Washington Times, so this can't be a complete fabrication, right?-- Nihlus1 ( talk) 05:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
This is the best source I found so far, unfortunately WP:OR: http://ruslanleviev.livejournal.com/38649.html So, basically, Russian marines are there, military air traffic controllers probably too. Also, there's some Russian ground equipment as well as drones but it's still unknown whether Russian soldiers are actually fighting. No hurry here, this will sort out very soon. -- Emesik ( talk) 12:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Moscow confirmed it had "experts" on the ground and Reuters via a Lebanese source said "The Russians are no longer just advisors," one of them said. "The Russians have decided to join the war against terrorism.".
[15] --
LeVivsky (
ಠ_ಠ) 17:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
If you go to the liveuamap.com about Syria there is a source from today that says that Russia has added 1.700 soldiers to those already present at the Tartus naval base. It also says that 29 Russian jets now are stationed in Latakia airport. We need to update the infobox. ~ Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.141.138 ( talk) 22:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
"Russian Casualties" There is information in the info table about 103+ Russian troops being killed in the conflict after a rocket attack – referring to a news article on this site http://antikor.com.ua/articles/61749-tela_103_russkih_voennyh_pogibshih_v_rezuljtate_raketnogo_obstrela_v_sirijskoj_provintsii_rakka ... Yet, the article itself is barely a reprint of an earlier Sep 05 RIA article http://ria.ru/world/20150905/1231510997.html#ixzz3ktw2RJea relating to war in Yemen, with the words Saudi changed to Russian, Yemen changed to Syria and so on. The news article does't itself refer to any primary or secondary source information, and is itself located in the Ukrainian internet segment – which leads me to believe that information in the article is given with parody/disinformation purposes in mind. Hence, info about, the military casualties for Russia needs to be removed from the Syrian Civil War summary table's Losses section. -- Lapkonium ( talk) 14:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
References
@ Rajmaan: your addition of East Turkestan Islamic Movement seems poorly sourced, and maybe even completely unrelated. There is no mention of the Uyghur group being a major force in Syria, and you sourced don't seem to support it well. Please note that adding belligerents to the infobox should first get a consensus on the talk page. GreyShark ( dibra) 05:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
This war involves many international belligerents, and I don't think it can be classified as a civil war any more. I don't know what kind of war to classify it as, so how about renaming this page to "Syrian War"? -- BurritoBazooka ( talk) 20:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
What about Chinese diplomatic support of Assad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SibHunter ( talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
It is an amazingly complex war with many sides and factions and outside forces intervening. WWII was simpler in some ways, with really two big groups of countries fighting each other. Legacypac ( talk) 22:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
This article http://charter97.org/en/news/2013/3/18/66726/ claims that Belarus supports Assad in this war because it sold some quantity of weaponry to Syria at any point between 2008 and 2012. Surely it is not enough evidence to place Belarus among the supporters of the government in this conflict? Any chance Belarus can be removed from the list? 93.84.53.68 ( talk) 18:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)