Talk:Syrian civil war

Archives
Topical archives
Israel in the infobox DRN Kurds in the infobox Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Syrian civil war

Rebel groups

Introduction section was edited to make article misleading. Introoduction part should describe the nature of the conflict and oposing forces. The information about opositioon was deleted on 1st November and introduction only describes Government forces. The follwing section should be reincluded into intrduction:

The armed opposition consists of various groups that were either formed during the course of the conflict or joined from abroad. In the north-west of the country, the main opposition faction is the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front allied with numerous other smaller Islamist groups, some of which operate under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). The designation of the FSA by the West as a moderate opposition faction allows it, under the CIA-run programmes, to receive sophisticated weaponry and other military support from the U.S. and some Gulf countries that effectively increases the total fighting capacity of the Islamist rebels. In the east, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a jihadist militant group originating from Iraq, made rapid military gains in both Syria and Iraq. ISIL eventually came into conflict with other rebels, especially with Al-Nusra, leaders of which did not want to pledge allegiance to ISIL. By July 2014, ISIL controlled a third of Syria's territory and most of its oil and gas production, thus establishing itself as the principal anti-government force. As of 2015, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are openly backing the Army of Conquest, an umbrella rebel group that reportedly includes an al-Qaeda linked al-Nusra Front and another Salafi coalition known as Ahrar ash-Sham, and Faylaq Al-Sham, a coalition of Muslim Brotherhood-linked rebel groups. Also, in the north-east, local Kurdish militias such as the YPG have taken up arms and have fought with both rebel Islamist factions and government loyalists.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.70.4.126 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2015‎ (UTC)

References

Syrian Turkmen Brigades, Turkmen Mountain ,Syrian Turkmen Assembly and Bayırbucak ,

The Sultan Murat Brigades took control of the villages on Azaz-Jarablus front in northern Aleppo province alongside troops from the Damascus Front, a group fighting ISIL and regime forces. Turkmen seize Syrian villages controlled by ISIL

National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces Turkman Component of the Syrian National Coalition

Since Russia began air strikes on the Turkmen mountains in north-west Syria last month, nearly 5,000 people from the country's ethnic Turkmen minority have fled their homes. Many have crossed the border into Turkey's Hatay province, their plight overshadowed by a diplomatic row between Turkey and Russia.The Syrian Turkmen taking flight from Russian bombing

Provided evidence of the support of the Turkish military forces (for artillery fire large caliber) and the purchase oil off the terrorists.)

Provided evidence of the support of the Turkish military forces (for artillery fire large caliber) and the purchase oil off the terrorists.)

Jump up ^ https://russian.rt.com/article/145541 Jump up ^ http://lifenews.ru/news/182947 Jump up ^ http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/1579521/video/

References

Turkmens can be showed as an entity like YPG and YPJ on infobox

With the recent advancements on Turkish border (liberation of 20 Turkmen villages and Çobanbey town and border crossing) and in Aleppo (gaining of a vicinity from YPG) by Syrian Turkmen Brigades of the Syrian Turkmen Assembly (part of Syrian Opposition), I think Syrian Turkmen Brigades can be showed on the infobox. Sputnik, Anadolu Agency, Haber7, Al Jazeera

Turkmens, Syrian Turkmen Assembly and Syrian Turkmen Brigades "must" be mentioned in the Syrian Opposition part since they are currently the driving opposition force in North Aleppo and center of the Turkey's Syria policy. - Berkaysnklf (talk) 7 April 2016, 18:12 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.75.198.117 (talk)

Title Change?

Why? Because it's not a civil war. I have no ideas for a title, I just cannot comprehend how "civil war" sufficiently describes the conflict. There are multiple state actors involved, the entire conflict was engineered from the outside, and therefore it cannot possibly be described as an internal conflict. I would really like to see Wikipedia set a proper example here, unlike the BBC for example who are obsessed with palming all blame onto Syria in and of itself, and instead tell it how it really is. This is a full-scale proxy war and it ought to be labelled as such. Mere Mortal (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Civil wars always involve foreign interventions. Could you even name a modern civil war that does not involve foreign states? There is no rule that says foreign states cannot participate in civil wars at all. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This article made me totally lose my faith on Wikipedia. Must be one of the most biased articles ever written. It's clearly pro-US and pro-Israel if you could put a label on it. Shame on the editors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:D47:2EC7:9300:7C9F:5C61:8023:848D (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME applies and the title is generally accurate MarkiPoli (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Mere Mortal. Google the term and read the very first definition. Beingsshepherd (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The UN ICRC has changed conflict status in Syria from Civil war to "International Armed Conflict". [[1]]

I guess it's a good sign that the title should be changed? --WikiNameBaks (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Proxy War?

Should the lede really talk about the opinion of this being a proxy war given that Russia is directly involved in bombing Idlib and Aleppo rebels? Its not really a proxy war if Russia is not solely relying on proxies, and is actually itself directly engaging in the conflict.

My suggestion is for us to move that proxy war clause from the first paragraph and have it moved down to section 9: Foreign Involvement. 68.199.221.23 (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's a misleading and superficial opinion. It shouldn't be in the lead, and probably shouldn't be in the article at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I disagree: the proxy war aspect seems extremely important to me - not particularly Russia's involvement, but certainly between the major Sunni and Shi'ite powers. And I would speculate that if it had just been between the SAA alone versus the rebels alone it would have ended quite some time ago, one way or the other, and a whole load less blood spilt. Batternut (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Just because there is outside involvement doesn't make it a proxy war. There are very few wars with only two belligerents.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Batternut that it is not only fair to describe this as a proxy war, but deeply inaccurate, now, to omit such a description. It may not have begun as one initially, but at this point the vast majority of all arms and financing for all sides of this conflict have come from external sources seeking to influence the resolution of the conflict on their own terms. -Darouet (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Its the definition of a proxy war. SaintAviator lets talk 22:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

archiving out of order?

There hasn't been any archiving since 6 Oct 2016. The Talk page is getting too long now. Can anybody get the needed archiving back into active? --Corriebertus (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it will be archived now. Keep in mind, 18 days is awful long.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 05:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Template boxes

Can anyone see what is wrong with the template boxes at the bottom of the page? I can't notice anything but they are not showing properly. A fresh pair of eyes might see it instantly. Cheers, Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mtaylor848: There are too many templates in the page as a whole, and so excess templates display as links and the page is placed in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

And see #Template errors just above. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Technical issue

The info that was removed may be needed to be removed, but the removal misordered the whole template. Someone, fix it. שיר (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Military strength

Estimates are way wrong here. Irans militia are there in high numbers. 100,000 plus and rotatating. Isis strength is too low. The link shows low estimates but higher than in the article. [2]. I will find another link that shows Irans militis, Hez, Quds etc at about 150,000 in total. SaintAviator lets talk 22:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Here: 'According to Colonel Mohammad Eskandari, IRGC is prepared to deploy 42 brigades,138 battalions, almost 130,000 troops to the theatre of war in Syria. The commander of the IRGC, Major-General Mohammad Ali Ja’fari, estimates that 200,000 Iranian and non-Iranian troops are currently fighting under the auspices of IRGC forces in Syria. This figure most likely includes pro-Assad militia fighters trained and armed by Iran. Various sources put the number of Iran-sponsored Shia militia troops fighting in Syria between 18,000 to 100,000'. [3]

100,000 here [4] SaintAviator lets talk 23:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

A lot of text, but little clarity

A lot of text, but it is very unclear!

What is the recent/current status of control in the disconnected 'green'-rebel areas? I read that the main factions are now Ahrar al-Sham, a Sunni salafist Saudi-Turkey backed group, and Tahrir al-Sham, an Al-Quada led salafist/wahhabist group!

What are the ideologies of these groups in control?

To what extent are the government forces real Syrians who support Assad, and not Iranian-Hezbollah and other forces?

Pretty vital information that is either not present at all, or burried all over the place... -- Dg21dg21

Agree, thats why I supplied the links above. Its a start. SaintAviator lets talk 22:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Killed 10 soldiers, and 9 civilians (4 children). 36 US missiles could not reach the goal (high-quality video). The US refutes but there is no evidence.

Killed 10 soldiers, and 9 civilians (4 children).[5] 1 rocket broke. Declared that the broken 36 shows a detailed | video (many objects have been preserved completely) of the entire database (the United States used 44 hits in the | picture 2 * 2 km with color pictures = nothing is visible. In fact, only half of the 44 declared objects are shown).[6]

36 US missiles could not reach the goal (high-quality video). The US refutes but there is no evidence. The well-known fact that earlier the US used false evidence against Yugoslavia as an excuse for aggression (many times). The US admitted that they lied in evidence of guilt against[7] Libya and Iraq. During the attack against Syria, there was a leak from the media leaks about the plans of the US to create a false[8] accusation against Syria. Detailed video from the place of events (UAV, and on the ground color high-quality video) - [9] 4 min.

I edited IP's comment because it made a reflist instead to use external links. Please do not harass other editor talk page if your edit was reverted or edited, see WP:GOODFAITH. I am not that well informed to weight if those sources are reliable, actually, I think the links to LiveJournal can not be considered as reliable source. While Lenta.ru had an issue with censorship&propaganda, sources from Vesti (VGTRK) seem to be more reliable. However, I do not see the scope for the sourced information in the current section "U.S. intervention over Syrian chemical attack" as the article is too long, and instead should be cited at 2017 Shayrat missile strike.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)