Talk:Syrian civil war

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

Map needs to reflect the Turkish army

The map shows the northern Wrath of Euphrates area as Syrian Rebels. They 're not - the force there is basically Turkish military, with some rebel allies. In fact most of the fighting is being done by the Turkish military. So currently the map is really incorrect. While initially, Syrian war map keys were like this, have now changed - they point out the difference between the Wrath of Euphrates held area, and the other rebel areas (like Idlib). Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

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/

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)

SAA downs Israeli warplane & drone?

Sources from AMN: [1] [2] [3]. Israel denies that any planes were shot down but acknowledges that missiles were fired at them. It is being reported that the warplanes were targeting SAA positions at the time.

To date, I am not aware of Israel ever having struck any rebel positions, but they have sometimes struck Hezbollah and the SAA. It therefore seems that Israel should perhaps be added as supporting the "rebel" side in the infobox. I know this is very controversial, but Israel is involved in the civil war by any objective measure now, so the question is how to show this to the reader. Esn (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, Turkey should be moved from "support" to the direct combatant section, and Erdogan added under "leaders". Esn (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest making the infobox look like this:

Opposition

(SRCC)

• FSA
• Fatah Halab (from 2015)^[a]
• Islamic Front (2013–2015)

Turkey^[b]
Support:
Saudi Arabia
France
Qatar
United States^[c]

---

Army of Conquest

• Al-Nusra Front (Jabhat Fateh al-Sham)
• Ahrar ash-Sham
• Turkistan Islamic Party in Syria

Allied groups

• Jabhat Ansar al-Din
• Jund al-Aqsa

Support:
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Turkey^[b]

---

Israel^[d]

With the notes being:

^a Fatah Halab (English: Aleppo Conquest) also includes groups from the FSA.

^b Turkey is part of the CJTF–OIR against ISIL, but opposes Rojava and is in a border conflict with it. Turkey has also clashed with the Syrian government and Russia.

^c Some of the rebels that have been armed by the United States have given vehicles and ammunition to the al-Nusra Front.

^d Israel has conducted airstrikes against the Syrian government.

165.166.157.72 (talk) 13:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I would support these changes: both participation and support are conservatively described. -Darouet (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Putting Israel on either side would be misinformation -- Israel responds to mortars attacks and the likes by attacking Syrian positions, but that doesn't mean they're on the side of the rebels. That's a big stretch. Eik Corell (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Israel only responds to SAA errant shellings, never was there a single case of them responding to rebel shellings. As they recently said, Israel holds Syria responsible to all shells landing in the Golan regardless of who fired them and will only attack the SAA. Editor abcdef (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Israeli officials have alluded this policy is about to change, and that they will hit whoever hits them instead of hitting government forces. Also, do we really need all these double mentions in the infobox? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - unconfirmed by Israel and belongs to spillover incidents, ongoing since 2012. This is not a direct involvement in the war as nothing changed.GreyShark (dibra) 13:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

So, what about the latest incident, which is acknowledged to have happened by all sides (even if Israel and Syria disagree about whether a plane was actually shot down)? Israeli airstrikes mostly target the SAA and Hezbollah (in this latest incident, it was near the anti-ISIS front), while they give medical aid to Syrian rebel fighters. They have also shot at ISIS near the Golan heights. They haven't shot at the Syrian Kurds as far as I'm aware, or helped them. So far, there's nothing to contradict my earlier proposal that Israel should go under the "support" column on the green side in the infobox template. It's not a perfect fit, but it seems like a better one than leaving their involvement out altogether or adding yet another column. Esn (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

USA led coalition aviation ( two F-16 and two A-10 ) attacked Syrian government army near Deir ez Zor (Deir ez Zur) killing 62 and helping ISIL

Russian media inform today 17th of September 2016 (in Russian) about 62 Syrian soldiers killed by air-strike from USA jets (2 F-16 and 2 A-10) near the SAA held and surrounded by ISIL forces city and air-base Deir ez Zor. Here is the same news in English: It looks like ISIL forces were ready and waited for air-strike, because they attacked immediately after and took the strategical high point nearby air-base: the Tharda mountain. Here is the map: Now SAA regain the control over the Tharda mountain after counter-attack suffering additional losses/

Western and Arabic media mainly silent about these shocking news: it's a info-blast - USA-led coalition aviation strike against Syrian government army (or Syrian Arab Army - SAA) and helped ISIL a lot!!! Here is the explanation about USA Air Force mistake: And the USA denial document (scan): - they insist it was just a mistake, the air-strike was stopped after Russians informed them about the SAA loses.

The same kind of air-strike had been reported by Russian media 6th of December 2015: and went generally unnoticed by other media but covered here: Airstrike_on_Saeqa_military_camp_near_Deir_ez-Zor Here some ideas about Persian Gulf kingdoms' jets participation in previous air-strike:

Please! Put it in the article, such a censorship as we see now in media should be not a case for Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.73.44.179 (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are some more links to Reuters web-site for confirmation of the news above: 95.73.44.179 (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems there is an interest in not puting such important news in the Wikipedia. Such high number of casualties, happening in the middle of a ceasefire, deserves not to be silenced. Green beret1972 (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Why are there no capital letters on Civil War?

Why are there no capital letters on Civil War like in these articles? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.25.39 (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This matter has been discussed countless times in the past and the title has been changed like half a dozen times now, because everytime there is a different consensus. I'm sure that most editors here are already tired of this and just want to stay with the status quo for now. 79.246.25.224 (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually the matter is still under discussion, unfortunately, at WP:MRV. As was stated several times, this is not the same as American Civil War because WP:RELIABLESOURCEs do not capitalise Syrian Civil War consistently. That said, it's quite likely the move review may overturn back to a caps version. We shall see.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front claiming U.S./Israeli support?

We conducted the interview ten days ago with a commander of the al-Qaida branch “Jabhat al-Nusra”. Abu al-Ezz reported quite openly about his financiers Saudi-Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait. We were able to exactly research the identity of the man and know practically every-thing about him.

A rebel from Aleppo arranged the interview. I have had contacts to Syrian rebels for years. It was conducted outside of Aleppo in a quarry in direct sight- and shooting-distance of Jabhat al-Nusra and could only be reached safely by a member of al-Nusra.

His fighters were partially not masked, i.e. easily identifiable [bespeaking confidence]. Part of his statements were nearly verbally confirmed shortly thereafter by a mufti in Aleppo. Other assertions about the lack of interest of rebels towards a ceasefire and an international aid-convoy also bore out. Just like his predictions about planned military activities in several cities of Syria.

Abu al-Ezz, commander, says about Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda): “We are one part of al-Qaeda. Our principles are: Fighting vice, pureness and securi-ty. Our affairs and our way have changed. Israel, for example, is now sup-porting us, because Israel is at war [apparently DESPITE official state-ments] with Syria and with Hizbullah. America also changed its opinion about us. Originally “IS” [ISIS, DAESH; formerly al-Qaeda in Iraq] and us were one group. But “IS” was used in the interests of big states like America, for political reasons, and was steered away from our principles. [That is, according to the Nusra fighter, the U.S. was supporting ISIS.] It became clear to us that most of their leaders work with secret security services [of the Western powers, presumably, based on textual context]. We, Jabhat al-Nusra, have our own way. In the past they with us, they were our supporters.

Our aim is the downfall of the dictatorial, tyrannical regime, [which is] the regime of the apostate. Our aim is the conduct of conquests, as [the great Arab general] Khaled ibn al-Walid made them: first in the Arab world and then in Europe.

Yes, the U.S. supports the opposition, but not directly. They support the countries that support us. But we are not yet satisfied with this support. They should support us with highly developed weapons. We have won battles thanks to the “TOW” missiles. We reached a balance with the regime through these missiles [which, according to mainstream reports (i.e., the Washington Post), were delivered to northern Syrian rebels by the CIA, under a U.S.-sponsored program]. We received the tanks from Libya through Turkey. We also received the “BMs” – multiple rocket launchers. The regime excels us only with their fighter jets, missiles and missile launchers. We captured a share of its missile launchers and a large share came from abroad. But it is through the American “TOW” that we have the situation in some regions under control.

The missiles were given directly to us. They were delivered to a certain group. When the “road” was closed and we were besieged we had officers here from Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States.

What did those officers do? Experts! Experts for the use of satellites, missiles, reconnaissance work, thermal surveillance cameras …

Were there also American experts?

Yes, experts from several countries.

For example we were told: We must capture and conquer “Battalion 47″. Saudi Arabia gave us 500 million Syrian pounds. For taking the “al-Muslimiya” infantry school years ago we received from Kuwait 1.5 mil-lion Kuwaiti dinar and from Saudi Arabia 5 million U.S. dollars.

From the governments or from private persons?

From the governments.

The West only sends us mujahedin and facilitates the way of those fighters. Why doesn’t the West support us properly? [Note: everything else he said indicates that it does.] We have many fighters from Germany, France, Great Britain, America, from all western countries.

What do you think about the ceasefire?

We do not recognize the ceasefire. We will reposition our groups. We will undertake in the next, in a few days an overwhelming attack against the re-gime. We have rearranged all our armed forces in all provinces, in Homs, Aleppo, Idlib and Hama.

You do not want those 40 trucks with aid supplies to bring those into the eastern part of Aleppo?

We have demands. As long as the regime is positioned along Castello road, in al-Malah and in the northern areas we will not let those [humanitarian aid] trucks pass. The regime must retreat from all areas in order for us to let the trucks pass. If a truck comes in despite that we will arrest the driver.

Why did a few of your groups pull back a kilometer or 500 meters from the Castello road?

The regime used highly developed weapons against us. We received a back-lash. That is why we silently retreated, to recover and to attack the regime anew. But this attack must lead to the downfall of the regime.

So that was a trick, a military tactic?

Yes, it was a military tactic.

Was the aim of this tactic to receive food or the reallocation of fighters?

We did not agree to the ceasefire.

Does that hold only for the al-Nusra Front or for all other groups, the rest of your allies?

This applies to all our integrated groups, who are our allies.

What about the Islamic Front, Islamic Army [groups in northern Syria affiliated with the Free Syrian Army]?

They are all with us. We are all the al-Nusra Front. A group is created and calls itself “Islamic Army”, or “Fateh al-Sham”. Each group has its own name but their belief is homogeneous. The general name is al-Nusra Front. One person has, for example, 2,000 fighters. Then he creates from these a new group and calls it “Ahrar al-Sham”. They are brothers whose beliefs, thoughts and aims are identical to those of al-Nusra Front.

Is that your own opinion or also the opinion of higher management levels? That is the general opinion. But if someone comes to you and makes you a ‘moderate fighter’ and offers you to eat and to drink, will you accept that or not?

450,000 people were killed in this war. I have been to Aleppo and Homs. Many parts are destroyed. If the war continues the whole country will be de-stroyed. Millions will die. … In Germany we once had the ‘Thirty Years’ War’ …

We are now only five years at war; that is comparatively short! [Note: the North Vietnamese fought for thirty years and were victorious in the end.]

Would you accept someone from the Assad-regime within a transitional government?

We accept no one from the Assad regime or from the Free Syrian Army, which is called moderate. Our aim is the downfall of the regime and the founding of an Islamic state according to the Islamic sharia.

The people of Aloush, who traveled to Geneva for negotiations, accepted a transitional government.

There are Syrian mercenaries. Aloush fights with the al-Nusra Front. The groups Turkey houses and from which the Free Syrian Army was created have earlier been with al-Nusra Front. These people are weak people; they received a lot of money and sold themselves. They must follow the or-ders of their sponsors. [The al-Nusra Front and its allies, according to the same account, receive money, weapons, and training from the foreign sponsors.]

The “Islamic Army and the “Islamic Front” negotiate in Geneva.

Their leaders were produced in the West. They are counseled and paid by western secret services and the secret services of the Gulf to fulfill the aims of those countries. [According to other parts of this account the al-Nusra Front and its allies do likewise.]

https://southfront.org/todenhofer-interview-with-al-nusra-commander-the-americans-stand-on-our-side/

Unless this were true, al-Qaeda-linked rebels would not openly be bragging about being associated with the apostate West and even Israel, especially as it is in a rivalry with other jihadist groups and ISIS...

By the way, you can question the bias of the link, but the interview comes from a reliable German newspaper, as the source notes. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda is not a reliable source, neither is South Front. I suggest getting more well-known sources before drastically changing things. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

What a nonsense.GreyShark (dibra) 13:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Adding US as supporter of YPG (Rojava)

It is so obvious that US forces support YPG, even American forces are with them shoulder to shoulder, American forces took YPG bandages to their arms. YPG waved US flag and also there are allegations about the incident, "a US officer did it" said a YPG fighter to a newspaper. Karak1lc1k (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The reasoning here appears to be that the U.S. is already listed as a co-belligerent of the YPG, which also implies support (thus, on the government side, Iran and Russia do not appear as "supporters", as they are already listed as belligerents.) Albrecht (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree - the US, Russia and Iraqi Kurdistan support the YPG at various levels, including airstrikes, logistics and advisory.GreyShark (dibra) 13:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War

Might be beating a dead horse but can someone take the initiative to move this page back to Syrian Civil War with capital C and W? I don't know how to do it. I've never seen any publication call it Syrian civil war (they very well might call it a "civil war" but the full name should be Syrian Civil War), just like nobody would type out American civil war, English civil war, Libyan civil war, Yemeni civil war, etc. Given that this article is the #1 search result on most search engines, the weird lower case spelling frankly reflects poorly on Wikipedians and makes us look like a bunch of amateurs. Just my two cents. Not to mention the current spelling really hurts my eyes (I have a pet peeve for bad spelling, grammar, punctuations, and capitalization).--IceFrappe (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

This issue is being discussed here. Charles Essie (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Done Charles Essie (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Charles Essie: thumbs up for finally getting done with this saga!GreyShark (dibra) 13:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

Arab Winter

Until the Arab Winter article is more than a glorified stub, I wonder if it can be, for now, removed from the war box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:6824:C1C:1FF0:7A73 (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we can remove it with roughly the same rationale as removing "Cold War II". Albrecht (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Can whoever has access do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:DC4F:7E41:8296:8678 (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Disagree - a valid linkGreyShark (dibra) 07:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Map

What the hell happened the large version? FFS fix it.

17:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark76 (talk • contribs)

It's still there. The map is now on a new page named Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War, rather than just being a single file. - GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 00:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

FSA commanders in Infobox

What a sorry state of affairs: who are these people? What is their verified political and military weight on the ground? Do they even exist?

• Albay Ahmed Berri: Brigadier-General. Virtually no combat history. No known units under his command. Current location unknown. Position may be unrecognized.
• Riad al-Asaad: Colonel. Living in Turkey since 2011. Apparently relieved of command in 2012. No combat history.
• Salim Idris: Brigadier General. Possibly located in Qatar or Turkey. Removed from position in 2014. No combat history.
• Abdul-Ilah al-Bashir al-Noeimi: Removed from position in 2014. Virtually no combat history. Ignored by FSA's U.S. sponsors.

When formidable fighting formations like Jabhat al-Nusra or Ahrar al-Sham are allotted one commander apiece, it's totally aberrant to bloat the Infobox with such a long list of nonentities and paper-pushers. Frankly, the leader of an ultra-small (but actually fighting) group like Jund al-Aqsa carries more weight than any of the above. Albrecht (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. All of these commanders, along with the prime minister of the Syrian Interim Government, are merely political figures living in Turkey with no real control of the rebel forces on the ground. I've replaced them with two actual FSA commanders of large groups (or formerly large groups) that fought on the ground: Bashar al-Zoubi and Jamal Maarouf. Editor abcdef (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The Southern Front commander is a great replacement, considering this is the single largest remaining FSA formation (if fairly static/truce-bound). Albrecht (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Airstrike on Deir ez-Zor

This edit of mine is being contended. My reason for the rewriting is that all responsible parties have denied purposely targeting the Syrian military, and the previous version implies that was indeed intentional by leaving out said by by omitting said clarifications. Eik Corell (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

While not involved in this edit conflict, I'm not at all comfortable with your formulation of "a botched airstrike" as established fact: all we know for certain is that SAA positions were hit — the Coalition has denied doing this deliberately, but that is a statement of position, not a fact. It's perfectly acceptable to cite the U.S. position on this incident, but let's make the attribution clear. Albrecht (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Albrecht, and Eik Corell I am comfortable with a statement attributed to US officials that says the airstrike was an accident. -Darouet (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of FSA Under Infobox

FSA is included right at the top under the info box for the opposition, but if you click on the link for the FSA, the Wikipedia article refers to FSA in past tense. Shouldn't we include a more dated timeline such as: FSA (2011 - 2012) or something like that.

From my understanding the majority of those in the so-called FSA have joined terrorist groups like al-Nusra or ISIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.18.64 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

For example, Islamic Front is listed as "Islamic Front (2013-2015)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.18.64 (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The entire FSA component of the Infobox is in need of urgent overall. As I remarked yesterday ("FSA commanders in Infobox," above), the FSA commanders are all either out of date or marginal figures whose role in the conflict is impossible to verify. In addition, I observed some time ago that the given strength of "50,000" is completely spurious, as the source in question is referring to all Saudi-sponsored militant groups, not FSA groups in particular. Another point is that Army of Conquest-affiliated groups almost certainly outnumber non-AoC-groups, so AoC should arguably be listed first. Albrecht (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The central FSA command still exists, but it only controlled the factions in 2011 and 2012. Regardless, numerous rebel groups still call themselves the FSA so we shouldn't just remove it. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing the FSA entirely would be extreme, but there needs to be some effort to remodel the Infobox in line with realities on the ground. Removing obsolete commanders and an inflated strength figure would be a start. Albrecht (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Albrecht if you proposed some of those changes concretely here, providing refs, that'd be helpful. -Darouet (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

See above: most FSA commanders have not held any verified command in years, while the FSA strength figure is clearly erroneous. At the end of the day it's also an editorial decision: we obviously can't list every commander of every armed group in Syria, so why are marginal FSA figures given such disproportionate space? Albrecht (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, an informed and concrete proposal would be helpful. -Darouet (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, my first two concrete proposals would be, 1) remove the erroneous figure of 50,000 for FSA strength (see justification here) until something better can be found; 2) limit FSA to one commander, as per other major rebel groups. This would involve the removal of four figures (see my candidates in "FSA commanders in Infobox," above). Albrecht (talk) 17:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Map legend

In the map legend should be used the most widespread in the sources and recognizable name - i.e Al-Nusra Front or al-Qaeda in the Levant, not Jabhat Fateh al-Sham - as ISIL, but not Daesh, for exemple. As it was before, but then for some reason it changed. 87.252.229.38 (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

There is a discussion taking place here that might effect this page. Charles Essie (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Secret US arms programme

' ... Turkey had effectively transformed the secret US arms programme in support of moderate rebels, ... '

Is there any detail on this programme? If not, here's possibly a helpful link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-begins-weapons-delivery-to-syrian-rebels/2013/09/11/9fcf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html Beingsshepherd (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Beingsshepherd: thanks, I hadn't seen this WP piece. We have an article on at least one program involved in this (Timber Sycamore), though there are likely others. -Darouet (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Criteria for creating articles about militias

It seems every single group fighting in Syria now, however minor and short lived, have articles created for them, and it is simply pointless and not notable. We should have some criteria for creating such articles. Number of members, influence, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you give an example of what you mean? I would think that an armed group fighting in a civil war is inherently notable, regardless of its size (note also that numerical strength isn't a good barometer of efficiency; see Jund al-Aqsa). There has been some back-and-forth on which groups should be included in the Infobox, which is probably a fairer point (on the government side, it's baffling that, say, the PFLP-GC is listed instead of Liwaa al-Quds, as far as Palestinian militias go). Albrecht (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to take a random example, "Liwa al-Haqq (Idlib)". There are tonnes of such stubs. Every single tiny faction doesn't need an article just because it has a name. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It's true that there's been a mass proliferation of (mostly FSA) groups through attrition, mergers, schisms, and re-brandings, as well as groups that are likely only marginal/paper formations (TOW recipients). I think our prime concern is that these groups be documented accurately and not given undue weight. Albrecht (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

North Korea

Some IP user tried to add North Korea to the infobox, despite previous discussion to comment it out. So far the North Korean alleged involvement has only been proposed by rumors, with no official approval of neither North Korea nor Syrian Arab Republic. We need very strong sources to justify listing North Korea in the box and it should be notable and verifiable.GreyShark (dibra) 07:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland, Albrecht, and SaintAviator: your opinion is welcome (participants of August 2016 discussion).GreyShark (dibra) 07:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Also @BountyFlamor:.GreyShark (dibra) 07:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Legacypac, FunkMonk, and Opdire657: - participants of May 2016 discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 07:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

There's not enough to justify listing it here. The reports of North Korean troops are now months old. If the story was true I would expect some follow-up. North Korea is, however, mentioned in Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War, and I think this is appropriate.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Rumours are not enough for inclusion. FunkMonk (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• As per above (and my own previous statements), there needs to be a higher burden of proof than "so-and-so said." There's also a difference, I will observe, between a pre-existing (commercial) military relationship and "support" in the context of the SCW. Albrecht (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If North Korea was really supplying troops to Syria that would be big news, and until then its just a rumor. Legacypac (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Egypt

According to AlMasdar, Egyptian soldiers arrived in Syria: [4]. While this is not confirmed and the Egyptian military is not involved actively in combat missions (yet), Egypt appears to be siding with the Syrians/Russians/Iranians.Schluppo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't add it to "support" yet, we should wait until more reports confirm it. Once/if they do, then Egypt should be added.--PaulPGwiki (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Not confirmed, hence not in the infobox. Period.GreyShark (dibra) 12:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Still unconfirmed, but according to AlMasdar and a Lebanese newspaper, Egyptian fighter jets arrived in Hama Airbase, Syria. [5] Schluppo (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Inching closer to confirmed; As-Safir, while not a neutral source, is a reputable one. If true, we should get more confirmations shortly. Albrecht (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Egypt: "Our priority is to support national armies, for example in Libya to exert control over Libya territory and deal with extremist elements. The same with Syria and Iraq." (Jerusalem Post) Albrecht (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Latest on this topic: intelligence-sharing: "Egypt, Syria intelligence 'cooperating to extradite captured jihadists'" Albrecht (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The Lebanese Al Akhbar is now reporting this: http://www.al-akhbar.com/node/269261 . Thoughts? Albrecht (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add Egypt (2 support, while 3 oppose), especially considering Egyptian denial per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Please notice this article and template are under SCW&ISIL sanctions before you continue edit-warring not abiding the WP:BRD.GreyShark (dibra) 07:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Considering that, a) you are a party to this edit conflict, and b) you have ignored repeated opportunities to articulate your position here (and have done so only in conjunction with threats of administrative sanction), this is a fairly sorry display of WP:ADMINCOND. Your appeal to consensus is furthermore disingenuous: the only other objection on record dates back to 3 November, before a preponderance of WP:RSs emerged attesting to Egypt's involvement on the side of the SAR, which you have — conspicuously — failed to address. In other words, it's not enough to plant your heels and say "I don't like it": how, specifically, do you reject the evidence of support reported in multiple, overlapping and mutually corroborating WP:RSs?

Finally, as none of my edits on this topic breached the WP:3RR (my last two edits were logged on 18 and 20 December, and my previous Egypt-related edit was 16 December), I invite you to drop the abusive rhetoric ("before you continue edit-warring not abiding the WP:BRD") and tactics. Albrecht (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Another ref here. [6] SaintAviator lets talk 21:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I think it's clear Egypt supports the Syrian Army, no reason to withhold this from the history books now Muthaman (talk) 07:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Russia begins large-scale operation

According to Russian sources, the Kuznetsov naval group began military operations on Syrian territories [7].GreyShark (dibra) 13:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

This has probably been brought up before, but geez, that infobox is absolutely atrocious. It's practically its own C-Class article. Is there a way to partially collapse it by default? Or...some...other way of reducing how overwhelming it is? TimothyJosephWood 13:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree in general. However, reducing the width is somewhat tricky without loosing crucial information. On the other hand, we can easily reduce the inflated length of the infobox - perhaps by removing heads of coalition states. I don't think anyone except commander of CJRF-OIR should be mentioned.GreyShark (dibra) 19:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Highly notable killed leaders should also be listed, such as former Assad defense minister (Dawoud Rajiha) or Islamic Front Military Chief (Zahran Alloush), etc. EkoGraf (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The SCW is the most complex war in history, so it's no wonder that the infobox is this large. But i have to agree, reducing the length might be a good idea. Maybe we can put the "not so important but still notable enough" leaders and commanders into collapsable lists, like with the KIA?79.246.8.106 (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Supporting factions could also put back into collapsed lists, like they once used to. What about the Islamist groups "Caucasus Emirate" and "Jabhat Ansar Al Din"? Are they notable enough for the infobox? And regarding the "Islamic Front", which went defunct in 2015, is it still neccessary to keep it there?

Those are just some ideas from me.79.246.8.106 (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Not to burst anyone's bubble, but the Syrian Civil War is certainly not the most complex war in history. It's not even a contender.

As for the infobox, it may be helpful to use WWII as a guide, and note that many portions of what could otherwise be an overwhelming infobox have been spun off either to their own articles, or to their own sections. TimothyJosephWood 13:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Good points. A few suggestions:

• absolutely restore the collapsible lists for "Supporters," especially as these, a) have repeating information (USA and Russia supporting multiple parties), and b) are likely to expand (Egypt and China likely to be confirmed as SAA supporters)
• remove CJTF–OIR participants that are not currently conducting strikes (Canada has not conducted strikes since January, and it's unclear if the Gulf monarchies are active either), and append the list with a "...and others" linking to the main CJTF–OIR article. Same applies for CJTF–OIR "Commanders."
• condense "Opposition" section by removing extraneous formations/umbrella groups (Fatah Halab, Islamic Front and Army of Conquest being essentially re-brandings of roughly the same alliance)

This should suffice to cut down the "Belligerents" and "Commanders" sections lengthwise by half. Albrecht (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I recommend severely pruning the KiA lists, which currently include many regular soldiers, not just leaders.—indopug (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Rather than scrubbing the information entirely, though, I wonder if we could begin migrating to something like List of commanders and leaders in the Syrian Civil War (similar to our "Main belligerents" page). This could also help us trim the SAR commanders section — right now we have an odd mix of famous field commanders and not-so-famous holders of top military-administrative posts; not sure who we should keep, but it's clear there isn't room for everyone. Albrecht (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Further, there's a crazy amount of very notable KIA on the SAR side (ministers, deputy ministers) — it would be nice to keep all this info in one place, even if it doesn't belong here. Albrecht (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Its a very complex conflict. Certainly the prime contender for most complex conflict this century. Certainly it has the most potential for many decades, (since Cuba?) of a conflict that could get out of hand. Its a bit like the 100 years war in terms of scope, if you tie in the Arab spring conflicts and the very longstanding conflicts of involved parties i.e. Saud vs Iran visible as Yemen / Hezbollah / Lebanon / Syria / Iraq. With these things in mind, I think a lot of the data already recorded would be of interest to readers, somewhere. SaintAviator lets talk 22:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I came here after getting whacked by the infobox. Holy smokes, that thing is huge! It would be a good case study on infoboxes to figure out how that thing evolved over time into the bloated mess that it is today. Is there some conceivable way that we could move a considerable chunk of it to a dropdown box somewhere in the article or something? Icebob99 (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Timeline

Shouldn't we remove the timeline from this article? Someone recently created a separate article for that: Course of events of the Syrian Civil War. Doing this would reduce the length of the article greatly.79.246.8.106 (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Should be merged here: Timeline of the Syrian Civil War FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the article's length is a problem but I think the course of events section should condensed and not completely removed. The same could be done for the lengthy belligerents section, some of its content could be relocated to List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War. Charles Essie (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• There should be a war overview in this main article, not a detailed timeline. There should however be a reasonable was history section, even though shorter than the inflated timeline.GreyShark (dibra) 08:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

CE

Tidied prose in the lead and first section but stopped as it would be a Sisyphean task to continue. The copious citations and references seem to me to be somewhat biased towards proxy organisations beholden to US state goodwill, I suggest that the article could be improved by giving more space to other biases, if objective sources are lacking. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Major Western news outlets — what are conventionally known here as WP:RSs — have become purveyors of such utter unreality regarding events in Syria that an unbiased article probably won't be possible for decades. A few days ago the Washington Post published an ominous piece about the military supremacy of Iranian/Shia militias on the battlefield (echoing the well-known themes of Salafist propaganda), mere hours before a major offensive involving zero Shia militias broke the back of the rebel forces in Aleppo. It really gets ludicrous at times. Albrecht (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove Arab Winter link

The article is a stub that hasn't been properly looked after since it was published. 2602:306:CC79:B20:0:0:0:49 (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I would agree (as per the removal of other neologisms — "Cold War II"), but would extend it further to "Arab Spring" itself. Only one or two months of a 6-year conflict can be held to coincide with the brief historical events known as "the Arab Spring". Albrecht (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Most articles that describe what caused the war actually bring up the Arab Spring though. Most people discussing the Arab Spring use Syria as an example of its failure. The two are intertwined. And that article is at least not a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:35A6:B0D:A8F1:7494 (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - a valid link.GreyShark (dibra) 06:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Suggested title change to Syrian War (2011‒)

As has been argued (Oct 16) in the above thread, Title Change this is "not a civil war". This view/interpretation has been confirmed within a group of fact finders who reported back to the UN here, and specifically from 17m07s "I want to make this one particular point because I think it is very important and it gets to the core of everything that's going on: This is not a civil war in Syria that's probably the first thing we heard and it is a point that we heard over and over again. It is not President Assad against his own people. It is President Assad and the Syrian people altogether, in unity (presumably from the perspective of the government side of the conflict) against outside forces, against outside mercenary forces, terror organisations ...".

I argue that the article title becomes an NPOV issue. Sure it started on the basis of the street protest of opposition forces and in response to repeated quelling of this opposition but it then escalated into a conflict where the majority of the opposition contributions are international.

It is indisputable that there is a war in Syria yet strong arguments remain to say it that it is badly/inaccurately described as a civil war. An addition of a date in the title would also add to its immediate informative content.

GregKaye 09:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

That's just one viewpoint cited from a Youtube named "KafkaWinstonWorld" which is not considered a very reliable source. The rebels claim the same thing, basically. They claim that the Syrian Civil War is not a civil war but it's a "revolution" by Syrians against Iraqi, Iranian, and Lebanese mercenaries. Neither side are backed by well-confirmed sources and "Syrian Civil War" remains the most neutral, common, and accurate title here. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor abcdef how relevant do you find comments by United Nations factfinders? GregKaye 16:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The vast majority of combatants on both sides are Syrian nationals. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The UN factfinders were repeating what they heard from the people...of one side. UN factfinders are only allowed (for legal reasons) in government controlled areas. There have been plenty of reporters, who don't have that same restriction, who report basically the same thing from the other side as well. Taking one side's perspective over another is not the point of the article. Neither sees it as a civil war, but that doesn't mean it isn't one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:35A6:B0D:A8F1:7494 (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course its not a Civil War. It was an attempted regime change by outside powers like Saudi Arabia / USA / Turkey / France etc resisted by other outside powers like Russia / Iran. It includes foreign proxies terrorists, arms shipments, direct foreign power involvement. Its too early in this climate of Political interference for that idea its anything but a civil war to get traction. SaintAviator lets talk 22:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Strength of Factions

Most of the sources for faction strengths, and casualties are 1-2 years old. I understand that this is because there are not any reliable figures currently available. I suggest that the figures which lack current secondary source data be replaced by unknown, which is most factually correct; or the year that the information was relevant be posted next to the numbers. 165.123.208.59 (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

For Instance here are how old the articles are (roughly):

"Syrian Armed Forces: 178,000[71] (1 yr 3 mos old)

General Security Directorate: 8,000[72] (2 yrs old)

National Defense Force: 80,000[73] (2 yrs old)

Hezbollah: 6,000–8,000[74] (9 mos old)

Ba'ath Brigades: 7,000 (no source)

Russia: 4,000 troops[75] and 1,000 contractors[76] (1 yr old)

Iran: 3,000–5,000[74][77] (9 mos old)"

FSA: 40,000–50,000[78] (3 yrs old)

Islamic Front: 40,000–70,000[79] (no date)

Fatah Halab:[a] ~25,000–32,000[80][81][82][83] (3 yrs old, 2 yrs old, 2 yrs old)

Other groups: 12,500[84] (9 mos old)

al-Nusra: 13,000[85][86] (1.5 yrs old, 1.5 yrs old)"

165.123.208.59 (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The figures should stay, but with a date. That is the best way.GreyShark (dibra) 08:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The figures paint a sketchy incomplete picture, which dont explain Syrias success. This helps a bit. 'Iran has deployed more than 70,000 Iranian and non-Iranian forces in Syria, and pays monthly salaries to over 250,000 militiamen and agents'. [8]. SaintAviator lets talk 20:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Turkey al nusra/support

The fact that Turkey never did support al nusra (no source about it). They still do support other groups within the army of conquest (like ahrar sham and al zenki). Witch means that Turkey still does support the group. The used sources only mentioned that Turkey wants the al nusra out of aleppo+Turkey recognized Al nusra as a terrorists group since 2014 Hakan3400 (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• This was transferred from talk:Syrian Civil War infobox redirect page.GreyShark (dibra) 08:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Protect the page

This is a mess. Too many un-ID'd users making edits each day for anyone to keep track of them all. And the info box, at the very top of the page has been broken since at least December 6th, from checking history. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You can try WP:RfPP, but I doubt it'd work. The infobox is transcluded from a separate page, I just fixed it. Try purging if you can't see the fix. ansh666 01:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I declined the request as there are considerable constructive contributions from IPs, too. Samsara 09:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I noticed some of this vandalism in the infobox, but it's not broken for me. Likewise, I just looked through the additions from my edit on December 6 up the latest edit by me, and I didn't see any vandalism that got through. See for yourself[9]. Might wanna re-add the stuff that was removed from the lead paragraph, though. Eik Corell (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at the infobox template, and it does not seem to need protection at the moment. Samsara 09:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Iraqi Kurdistan

The Iraqi Kurdistan provided support to Rojava during the siege of Kobani. It is not a part of the task force and has never been.GreyShark (dibra) 06:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: - please respond instead of blind reverting me. I thought we have been a WP:GF editors. Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 07:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: Apologies - I didn't see your last post. My main point is that regardless of its status, Iraqi Kurdistan's participation in Kobani merits a mention in the infobox. While I understand why you don't want it listed as a task force member (this was a misunderstanding on my part), I don't understand why some editors insist on not mentioning it at all. Do you have any suggestion? Again, sorry for missing your first post. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: I agree that it belongs to the infobox due to its role in Kobani. I do not however consider Iraqi Kurdistan as belligerent, but rather as a limited force of advisors and troops indirectly (or at most marginally) involved in fighting. In my opinion it should be listed as supporting party to Rojava during 2014-15.GreyShark (dibra) 09:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: The problem it that this puts it in the same category as those that only provided material aid. It should be clear in the infobox that troops from Iraqi Kurdistan fought ISIS in Syria. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, their role was mainly advisory - the same way Russia supplied advisory troops prior to its direct involvement in September 2015. We have to be clear on what is support and what is belligerency: direct involvement of troops (including air force) is belligerency, while financial, logistic and military support is support. What is military support - delivery of weapons and advisors, as well as sharing intelligence. This is my opinion.GreyShark (dibra) 17:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I was under the impression that troops from Iraqi Kurdistan actually fought in Kobani. If that's not the case, then I agree it should be regarded as a "supporter" rather than a belligerent. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn:  Done. Thank you for the good faith my friend!GreyShark (dibra) 22:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: Always a pleasure working with you. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Shortening the article

With just four edits, the article has gone from #101 to #105 on the list of longest pages. I would suggest trying for #200, which can be achieved with only about 65 similar small edits, and represents a reduction by about 15%. Anybody with me in this effort? Samsara 14:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

One way to shorten the article would be to extract the minutia from the operations timeline and creating a better detailed timeline article. For example, the Current paragraph does not mention the important events in Palmyra, where ISIL killed a significant number of Syrians, several Russians, including an officer, and captured a large number of arms. Which have been steadily destroyed by the Coalition in the recent days. 18 tanks have been claimed destroyed, for example. Not even a peep in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.25.29.6 (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I personally think the list of factions goes into excessive detail. The actual events should be the main focus, not by-the-way kind of detail about the factions. With sufficiently rigorous work, that section alone could probably provide the needed 15%; you could probably then squeeze some more from the events section in places where it's verbose. So by all means say a sentence about the tanks and arms, with appropriate sources. The main difference will be made elsewhere. Samsara 15:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I think this article could easily be condensed by relocating some of the more detailed information into existing articles. For example, we have articles titled "Course of events of the Syrian Civil War" and "List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War" for which content from the "Course of events" and "Belligerents" sections could be moved to, respectively. Charles Essie (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• We could also create a new article titled "Background and causes of the Syrian Civil War" for which to relocate content from the "Background" section. Charles Essie (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: More information to clarify Bashar al-Assad

The Background - Assad Government section never specifies that Bashar is the son of the president who dies when he takes office even though they share the same family name. I think it would be helpful to add something along the lines of:

In 2000, Bashar al-Assad, the son of Hafez al-Assad, took over as President of Syria upon Hafez al-Assad's death.


In addition, Bashar's religion is never specified other than in the caption of this photo further down in the page.

I believe in the Background - Demographics section where it mentions the religion of Bashar's wife and his parents, we should also specify the religion of Bashar. For example:

The Assad family is mixed. Bashar himself is an Alawite and married to a Sunni, with whom he has several children. His parents also belong to the minority Alawite sect that comprises an estimated 12% of the total population.[149]

Absolutspacegirl (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I implemented the first suggestion. I'm currently neutral and may think some more about the second. Regards, Samsara 20:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

All good points. Include. SaintAviator lets talk 06:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

shall we include these in casualties? Russian military plane with 92 on board crashes en route to Syria on 25dec

shall we include these in casualties? Russian military plane with 92 on board crashes en route to Syria on 25dec 45.116.233.39 (talk) 07:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

A Russian plane crashing in the Black Sea is not related to the Syrian Civil War in general. Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War would be the relevant article. Editor abcdef (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Russian "Contractors"

From what I understood, the Russian contractors you are referring are citizens of Russia involved in the conflict that are not part of the standing Russian Army. Referring to them as casualties of Russia is incorrect, certain citizens of Russia are fighting under ISIL, if the Russia AF kills them, does that mean Russian's are killing themselves? If they are seen as casualties of Russia, then all private mercenary American citizens must be seen as US casualties for objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.252.154.119 (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

why South-East of Syrian Map is colored green in infobox?

why South-East of Syrian Map is colored green in infobox? although its very scarcely populated or uninhabited land. Fix it pls.

I'm not the creator of the map, but my best guess is that it is that way because the rebels have control over the main roads and towns in that region, and also have a heavy presence in the area around them. Even if it is a small town or just unpopulated sand it is still under the control of an entity; that is, other groups cannot freely run around in that area without getting shot. – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 05:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

• Regardless of how depopulated and uninhabited an area is the map will always show a faction that controls the territory. If you only want to see settlement control the article is at cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Israeli warplanes strike SAA in Damascus?

AMN reported it, and BBC reported the accusations. I think it should be added, but I'm not sure which section to add it to. Esn (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

• Nothing new - once every few months there is some report, sometimes denied by Assad regime and sometimes confirmed, but always rejected by Israel. Frankly, with 7 air forces permanently operating in Syrian airspace, there is no way to know. And by the way this specific attack was attributed by some media sources to Israeli Air Force, but Assad sources said that those were in fact ground-ground missiles, striking Riff Dimashq.GreyShark (dibra) 06:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

An editor recently added this to article. Most of it is clear POV-pushing, but one or two of the sources could perhaps be useful. This article seems to talk about the destruction of a lot of ISIS oil tankers for example, but better sources exist for this claim. Regardless, I figured I'd take it here for discussion. Eik Corell (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Navboxes

• Navboxes don't work in this article as of now. Fix it please. Something wrong with {{Syrian Civil War infobox}}. 178.94.167.93 (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Syrian Army's Eastern Aleppo CS offensive

Could someone make an article about this assault? SAA's Tiger Forces already liberated about 15 villages from ISIS in the eastern vicinity of Aleppo and still advancing since 16th January. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.88.28.74 (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Changing all instances of al-Nusra Front to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham.

I'd like to propose that we change all instances of al-Nusra Front to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham. The group in question, also known as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, has changed its name and it would help if the current name was used uniformly through the text to prevent confusion about the fact that those two names do in fact refer to the same group. Syrian Civil War is already a hugely complex conflict with so many state and non-state actors and groups and I think that we should seize any opportunity to simplify things. It does appear that English-language media has embraced the new name (unlike when ISIS changed its name to IS which was largely ignored by the English speaking media). Assuming that there is no significant opposition to this I intent to implement this change within few days. --Melmann^(talk) 10:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

That would be historical revisionism. We should only use the name when describing events that happened after they changed their name, not retroactively. If "simplifying" means muddling up facts, it is not a good move. FunkMonk (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Current name? Since last week JFS no longer calls itself that and instead merged with several other groups to form Hayyat Tahrir al-Sham. Since then the English media has largely called the group by its new name. The name al-Nusra Front has been used for more than 4 years while JFS only "existed" for what? 9 months? Editor abcdef (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

At any case, I've noticed few instances when the new name was mentioned without the old, established one also attached (for the obvious benefit of the reader/viewer/listener). El_C 10:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Former name (Nusra), under which most of the world knows them, should still be mentioned at the very least in brackets. EkoGraf (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ahrar al-Sham

Currently Ahrar al-Sham was separated into a third raw, differentiating it from Tahrir al-Sham (which indeed is fighting it right now, despite previous alliance), but also from the Syrian opposition. Is there any evidence that Ahrar al-Sham is in conflict with Syrian opposition? If not - we should put it in the same raw with Syrian opposition forces, where Ahrar al-Sham was once fighting as a member of oppositional Islamic Front, later joining with al-Nusra into Army of Conquest and now splitting again.GreyShark (dibra) 06:38, 13 February 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)

Collapse of cease-fire - a new phase?

The cease fire between Asad forces and rebels ended on February 14, with fighting resuming all over Western Syria. Do we consider this a new phase of fighting?GreyShark (dibra) 17:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Can the map colors be made neutral?

On the current main map of the conflict, the Syrian government is colored red while the opposition is colored green. To me this implies that the Syrian government is 'bad', while the opposition is 'good'. Can we change the map to neutral colors (e.g. blue for the government and pink for the rebels)?

Wikipedia should attempt to remain neutral, rather than pushing a certain viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.24.139.138 (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Some would say red is good. Associating colour with good/bad is personal, the only really neutral colours are shades of grey. ISIS is grey, which reflects the ISIS flag, and that makes sense to me. Running with the reflect-the-flag theme, probably too much bother, but could we go for multi-coloured cross-hatching with each zone using the colours of the main flag? ;-) Batternut (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Since the Syrian Republic flag has red, and the colonial flag the opposition uses has green instead, the present colours would actually seem to fit. FunkMonk (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

SAA offensive in eastern Aleppo province

I think it's better to take consensus for a Syrian Army advance in eastern Aleppo Governorate. Syrian Army is advancing in East Aleppo particularly around Kuweireis Military Airbase however its advances seem to be very random instead of focused on just one direction. Sources have been stating it is advancing around Dayr Hafir but it has also made significant advances around places far off from it. Also the ultimate goal seems to be the Jirah Airbase rather than Dayr Hafir which is likely just a stepping stone, source: [10]. It also seems to be advancing to various other places including the Euphrates and until now it was also advancing to al-Bab until TSK and rebels cut them off from it. Therefore the name of the Syrian offensive should be chosen carefully. It shouldn't be created now as there isn't much information, an advance independent of al-Bab hasn't been developed, it's not known whether TSK and rebels will advance in East Aleppo governorate and well a fully-fledged assault isn't developed. Among the various name I can think of is: Day Hafir offensive/battle oF Dayr Hafir but it might not be okay to use it especially if SAA does advance around other places and the battle/offensive turns out to be short. Others are Eastern Aleppo offensive and Eastern Aleppo Governorate offensive, the second one I have added because "Eastern Aleppo" can cause confusion as people who don't know much about the recent happenings might mistake it for eastern portion of Aleppo city. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Iraq

I think it is incorrect to list Iraq as a participant who joined in 2017. According to other sources, Iraq was a participant in 2015 already.--Donovan O'Cooley (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Template errors

Recent edits (adding a few templates) have caused template errors in the article and it is in the hidden Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. To see the problem, search the article for "Template:". That shows a few templates which have not been expanded because of the problem. The article is also in Category:Pages with script errors because of a hidden error in Module:Navbar failing at line 23 (error('Invalid title ' .. titleText)). I don't have time to examine that at the moment but am recording the fact that some fixes are needed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 13 March 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)

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. [11]. 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'. [12]

100,000 here [13] 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). 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).

−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 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 accusation against Syria.

Detailed video from the place of events (UAV, and on the ground color high-quality video). https://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2875204 4 min