Talk:Syrian civil war

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

Turkey Support of ISIS

Infobox should have Turkey as supported of ISIS, there are undeniable evidences:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/links-between-turkey-isis-now-195700510.html http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/18/turkey-cut-islamic-state-supply-lines-erdogan-isis Dafranca (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC) http://www.torontosun.com/2015/11/19/turkeys-informal-isis-support 179.105.82.13 (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You received no response, and below you a separate discussion took place about whether Turkey should be listed under support of Kurds, somehow the deccision was made to continue listing Turkey as a Kurdish support. This article like so much of wikipedia when it comes to anything controversial in geopolitics, its essentially laughable and worthless pro-USA propaganda. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar are at the very least NOT in favor of the Kurds, and a strong case can be made to list all 3 states as being more or less with ISIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.52.222 (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Douma massacre page, call for input...

2015 Douma market air strikes, call for input/edits to get article in shape. Rename to 2015 Douma market massacre?

Turkey on same side as the Kurds?

Erdogan's "air force has mostly bombed the Kurds" rather than ISIS, according to "The Economist". Why are they on the same side in the infobox? Esn (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Excellent point; it makes no sense to include them on the same side. They should go in the opposition column. DylanLacey (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

They're in the "coalition", though, and separation with a line should be enough. Other groups in the same columns have fought as well (FSA, Nusra, etc.). FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

What is actually happening should take precedence over what is theoretically happening. Turkey supports the Sunni rebels and opposes the Syrian Kurds. Esn (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

So you'll remove Turkey from the coalition? FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

As little sense as it makes, it makes less sense to remove Turkey from the coalition it is officially part of. I suggest we throw in a footnote and leave Turkey in column 4. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Depends on which Kurds - the infographic here is pretty good at explaining a complex situation. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33690060 Legacypac (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's at least find a solution that does not involve splitting the coalition. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Turkey and PKK are not allies, but opponents. Turkey and YPG, are not allies. Rojava and Turkey are not allies either. YPG has close ties with PKK, a lot of the YPG people, are saying that they are the same people, and it is from the conflict with Turkey that they have gained their experience. PKK and Turkey are opponents for 40 years now. In addition even now, Turkey is attacking PKK in Iraq and Turkey and PKK is attacking Turkey, in Turkey. It is POV to add Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK and Turkey in the same alliance. I will post a few images that show the, imprisoned in Turkey, leader and founder of PKK in banners, flags and houses of the YPG.

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/files/live/sites/almonitor/files/images/almpics/2013/10/ypgocalan.jpg http://www.davidmeseguer.com/wp-content/uploads/Asayis2.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8b9sdEVnfow/VYv9x7L-HFI/AAAAAAAAASI/jy5hvwXb1Ko/s1600/ku3.jpg.

Rojava is YPG, BF is YPG plus FSA, PKK is PKK, so there are not allies with Turkey. Adding Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK and Turkey as allies, will find, neither Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK and their sources, nor, the Turkish government and its sources, to agree with.

You can add the European and North American countries plus Australia in the same side with Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK as well as FSA, but from there and on you need to check more, about who to add, and its relation with them Ron1978 (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Now it became even more POV than before, since in the same alliance a part have being named Democratic forces, with allies all the Sunni Islamic organizations, and in the same alliance you also find PKK and Turkey, which are not allies but opponents. I suggest the following:

In one column to add the NPF and its allies, something which is clear. In another to add the Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK-Iraqi Kurdistan. Keep on mind that those, are allies neither with the Islamic organizations nor the Turks. In another the FSA and its allies. FSA has some Islamic allies. In another the US-led coalition. If you prefer to add the coalition in the same side with Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK-Iraqi Kurdistan, then it is NPOV only if it contains the countries that are allies with and not opponents. In another any Islamic groups that are not allies with the FSA. In another Isis.

Keep on mind, that the main combatants are the NPF, the Rojava-BF-YPG-PKK-Iraqi Kurdistan, the FSA, the Islamic groups and Isis. Those are the ones that is NPOV to have the infobox based on them. Ron1978 (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I count 6 columns in that suggestion. That is too many. Forget that Turkey and Kurds in Turkey are fighting. In the context of the SYRIAN CIVIL WAR Turkey is in the NATO/EU American led group. That group is fighting against ISIL and (politically) Assad. Most of the NATO/EU support has been coordinated with the Kurds. So we have it right, within the context of a complex situation. Legacypac (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Turkey has openly admitted to intentionally shelling the YPG in Syria, acc. to the BBC. You're making it seem like Turkey is only fighting the PKK in Turkey, when in fact they are attacking U.S. allied Kurds in Syria. DylanLacey (talk) 12:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I am just suggesting the 6 columns based on what is going on. If anyone else agree on that, you can tell it here and then we can proceed. From there and onwards, anyone can add anything that he/she wants, with the appropriate sources. DylanLacey you are right that Turkey has shelled the YPG and that BBC said it. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34645462 I haven't disagreed with that. I have just said that Turkey is at war with PKK, I haven't denied anything else. Both you and everyone else, are welcome to add any sources claiming anything, in the case Ron1978 (talk) 16:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The template lists them PYD & Turkey as allies, but in fact Turkish Army have targeted PYD positions in Syria. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-hits-pyd-twice-for-crossing-euphrates-pm.aspx?pageID=238&nID=90385&NewsCatID=352 Kavas But historically and as in Iraq, Peshmerga is an ally of Turkey. (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

A fifth column should be formed to exclude the CJTF–OIR from the Rojava in the Main belligerents table, and to exlude world leaders from being listed under Rojava in the Commanders and leaders table. -Dominator1453 (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Including Turkey and the Kurds in the same column is the height of absurdity; however, adding a fifth column is not the answer as the infobox is complicated enough as it is. DylanLacey (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Turkey is fighting the Kurds in Iraq, not in Syria, so no, it isn't that absurd. They're good at playing divide and conquer with the Kurds and Arabs. The Kurds are not an unified group in any way, they have many internal conflicts. FunkMonk (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you unaware of the fact that Turkey has bombed the Syrian Kurds multiple times? This very discussion contains sources outlining this. DylanLacey (talk) 01:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Nusra (and other Salafist non-ISIS groups) has attacked FSA multiple times. They're in the same column. Also, Turkey did let Peshmerga through the border to enter the fighting in Kobane. So it's not clear cut at all. Furthermore, Turkey is cosy with the Kurdish government in North Iraq, which looks the other way when they bomb PKK fighters there. FunkMonk (talk) 01:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a neverending story with calling out the alliances, they will have shifted before we even have a chance of sorting it out. Especially with all these supposedly militant groups that fight for... Well basically what they believe to be the right cause at the time. Basically its a fight between them all and ISIS, Russia and US lead sides seem to be most dominant. I would almost want to say: make 4 columns, 1=US, 2=ISIS, 3=Russia/Syrian government, 4=Othergroups. Who fights who like I said, it changing by the day. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 07:31, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Counting Iran's casualties

Perhaps someone with more knowledge could shed some light on this situation. Currently, the infobox displays the number of Iranian KIA as 146. However, this excludes the approximately 385 Afghan and Pakistani troops who died fighting for the IRGC. How, exactly, should we categorize the Afghan and Pakistani fighters? They appear to be in a similar situation to the French Foreign Legion, and so should count as part of the Iranian military:

• They get paid salaries by the Iranian military. Specifically they get between $500 to $1,000 a month, plus naturalization papers.
• They undergo training in Iran, and are equipped by the IRGC.
• They are led by IRGC officers.
• They wear something like a uniform, even though their uniforms usually don't have IRGC insignia.
• Some organizations (such as the Levantine Group and Washington Institute) flat-out refer to the two "auxiliary brigades" (Fatimiyun brigade [Afghans] and Zaynabiyun brigade [Pakistanis]) as IRGC formations/Iranian operatives.
• On the other hand, sometimes (but not always) Iran denies that the Afghans are IRGC members, and they're apparently not considered citizens at the times of their deaths.
• On the other other hand, they're still given state funerals involving uniformed IRGC personnel.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/31/world/meast/syria-afghan-fighter/ http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/shiite-combat-casualties-show-the-depth-of-irans-involvement-in-syria
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/irans-afghan-shiite-fighters-in-syria
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSkrFNBXAAAxnT6.jpg:large

So? Should the number of Iranian military KIA be listed as 146+ or 531+?-Nihlus1 (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

They are equipped, trained, payed and sometimes led by the IRGC, but they are not organisationally part of the IRGC. Some have even identified them to be now part of Hezbollah Afghanistan [1]. Also, most reliable sources when pointing out IRGC dead they are referring to the Iranians and not the non-Iranians who are talked about in a separate capacity. Based on all this plus the overall vagueness, Iranian military dead need to be separate from the other non-Iranians. EkoGraf (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2015 (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

Your opinion ?

Please read the article and express your opinion, is there any grounds to consider these facts as supporting IS? Thank. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/research-paper-isis-turke_b_6128950.html

in addition http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/turkey-has-spent-years-allowing-jihadist-groups-to-flourish-so-beware-its-real-reasons-for-shooting-a6747161.html

http://www.infowars.com/former-nato-commander-turkey-is-supporting-isis/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.3 (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2015

There is credible information regarding the list of allies ISIS has. Turkey should be listed as an ally towards ISIS, Turkey has been purchasing all of the oil ISIS is able to capture or produce. Mark Van Muur (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Turkish businesses have been trading in gray market oil, but this kind of thing happens in all wars. Turkey is not militarily supporting ISIL and the infoboxes reflect which countries and militias are aligned with each other. Turkey is not fighting (generally) but is providing base access to the US and maybe other NATO forces soon. Legacypac (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2015

Turkey has allies within the listed group of oppositions, including Saudi Arabia. It is a known fact. Mark Van Muur (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion? 2

new event - http://www.euronews.com/2015/11/27/turkey-detains-journalists-who-allege-army-lorries-carried-weapons-for-isil/ - I still can't find the original Turkish article, in Euronews article said about "intelligence agency MIT trucks carrying weapons"...

Inappropriate reference link

Reference link (a) 143 under Course Of Events does not provide specific support for the statement and should be removed. I think it is just an editing artifact. The same link appears in the next sentence, to which it is actually relevant. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.103.180 (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Ceasefire attempt 2012

This section starts off somewhat abruptly - "the peace plan" with no background could probably be improved. Also the sentence introducing Kofi Annan feels abrupt. Think this could be cleaned up a little (first impression while reading through article). -KaJunl (talk) 02:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

also I don't love that Friends of Syria is mentioned without definition -KaJunl (talk) 02:55, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

NPOV & Uncertainty

Article says, "On 24 November 2015, Turkey reportedly shot down a Russian warplane due to repeated airspace violation.[564]" The word "reportedly" is used, but also "reportedly" that claim is false. The article says, "due to." But the cause of this action is uncertain. The "due to" could be Turkey's desire to protect Turks living in Syria, and the Turkish explanation could be a "prophasis," and not the real reason. Claims such as made in this article require at least 2 reliable secondary sources -- the sources are not reliable if coming from prejudiced or ax-to-grind sources. And there should not be ostensibly reliable sources contradicting the claims. Who knows what happened & why? Was this the shoot down after a 30 second fly over a tiny protrusion of Turkish land into Syria -- shoot down occurring after Russian plane was gone and over Syria? These questions lead me to propose that the sentence be changed to "On 24 November, 2015, Turkey reportedly shot down a Russian warplane. Turkey justifies this action as a response to airspace violation. Russia denies the alleged violation." I so changed the entry for the editors' consideration.(EnochBethany (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2015

Remove Recep Erdogan from infobox supporting kurds and place in column supporting ISIL, as per discussion

Mathaddict (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. a boat that can float! (happy holidays) 14:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Light grammar cleanup

I've been reading through the article and making mostly minor grammar changes. So far mostly consistency for things like capitalization. Feel free to change anything if you think I picked the wrong standard in cases where things were being done two ways - my preference is just that you keep it consistent throughout the article. Maybe it'd be worthwhile to have some sort of list somewhere of the preferred spelling/transliteration/capitalization for common terms? Not sure. -KaJunl (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• **Numbers - words vs. digits is not consistent, do we have a solid rule for when to use which?
• "Governorate"
  • Which is correct, typically: "governorate" or "the governorate"? I notice that this isn't entirely consistent. For example "in the Aleppo Governorate" but "in Ar-Raqqah Governorate." I changed the one instance of "in the Aleppo Governorate" to "in Aleppo Governorate" for consistency with the rest of the article, but I didn't search extensively for other inconsistencies here.
  • I capitalized all instances of "governorate" after a name ("Aleppo Governorate" instead of "Aleppo governorate"). This wasn't done consistently at all, but the capitalized version seemed more common. The only ones I didn't change were the plurals ("Aleppo and Raqqah governorates") which I was less sure about. Feel free to change this to whatever is best; I just didn't like the lack of consistency.
• "Syrian Army"
  • Capitalized "Army" throughout the article. Previously was not done consistently.
• Raqqa vs. Raqqah
  • Changed a few instances of "Raqqa" to "Raqqah" but I'm not sure which is most appropriate. Also, is there consensus that Ar-Raqqah is better than Al-Raqqah? And is there a preference for when "al" or "ar" are included/left off? I don't know enough about Arabic or the Wikipedia conventions for such things.
• al-Nusra Front
  • "al-Nusra Front" was most common but there were some "Al Nusra Front" and "al-Nusra front." I went with "al-Nusra Front."
• al-Qusayr
  • Used al-Qusayr, changed an instance of "al-Quseir"
• What is a "column"? This line confuses me: "Before the column was stopped, government forces had captured the high ground at Maaret al-Arteek." However, I might just not be familiar with the terminology.
• ISIS vs. ISIL
  • Have *not* made any changes here but is it worth discussing? Should we only use one or the other or switch back and forth?
• US vs. U.S.
  • Noticed this in the "ISIL offensives and U.S. airstrikes (June 2014 – January 2015)" section, but I'm sure it's an issue throughout. Also, UK and UN. Not sure what the preference is for periods but it's switching back and forth within paragraphs. I tried to change a few but didn't want to bother moving forward until I was sure what it's supposed to be..
• Defense vs. defence
  • Just noting this and hopefully someone else can take a look.
• Reporting, censoring, and propaganda section
  • Didn't love the tone/grammar here, so I rephrased it a bit, but I'd appreciate someone taking a look.

Belligerents - Axis of Resistance - Russia

I think this section can be expanded/redone. Doesn't need to be huge, but I don't feel like the couple of sentences there currently paint a good overall summary picture. -KaJunl (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

ISI and al-Nusra

The following line is in the article: "In April 2013, the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq released an audio statement announcing that al-Nusra Front is its branch in Syria." Should we still include this? I feel like it's more confusing than anything, given how things have evolved. ISI/al Quaeda in Iraq has morphed into ISIL and is generally separate from the al-Nusra Front (right?) -KaJunl (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It is important for historical purposes to be mentioned somewhere at least. Nusra is just ISIL light. And not even by much. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. Maybe could be reworded though? I'll let others weigh in. To me, it just sounded more like "recent news" even though it wasn't recent, and it kind of muddied my understanding. Just a viewpoint from not-an-expert reading through the article the first time. -KaJunl (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Do we know what and how the allegiances are between these at this time? I was also under the impression Al-Nusra was allied with ISIL but because there's so many factions fighting for the same thing, just slightly different its difficult to keep differentiating. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 14:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes they cooperate, sometimes they fight to the death. Legacypac (talk) 14:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

They were close allies (Nusra is just the Syrian branch of al Qaeda in Iraq, which is now ISIL) until Baghdadi demanded Nusra pledged allegiance to him. Ideologically, they're the same, in spite of what al Jazeera wants you to believe. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Belligerents

The belligerents section is beginning to feel a bit outdated. The section on the Kurds probably could be expanded to talk more about Rojava and recent history. The ISIS section has some seemingly random lines, like the bit about Palmyra, that probably fit best elsewhere.

Overall, I feel like we should make sure that this section always lines up nicely against the "main belligerents" section of the chart on the right, seems to be talking about the same groups/groups them together the same, etc.

-KaJunl (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Rojava

Given that Rojava is listed as one of the 4 main belligerents, after reading this article, I feel the topic is not adequately covered. I know that there is the separate "Rojava" article, but I think the amount of territory currently in YPG control warrants some more information on the group in the Syrian Civil War article. -KaJunl (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• @KaJunl: Feel free to improve and update the Syrian Civil War#Syrian_Kurds section, but restrict yourself to the most important things to know and the best sources, without adding any bloat. PanchoS (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't really feel knowledgeable enough about the subject matter to add much content (although I'm much more knowledgeable than I was more that I've read through the whole article - thanks guys) but hoping someone else gets a chance to go through and revise, or can offer input here about the best way to edit the section. -KaJunl (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

To clarify - I was referring to the article as a whole, not just in the belligerents section. The course of events seems to not give appropriate weight to the YPG either. -KaJunl (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a civil war

The term "civil war" does not seem to be appropriate anymore, given the very high number of foreign belligerents and their impact on the course of the war: Western coalition, Russia, Iran, Hezbolah, Kurds from Turkey, Afghans, foreign jihadists etc. Furthermore, the term "Syrian civil war" is very seldom used in the media. I suggest we rename this to "Syrian war". Lerichard (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Agh, could we have this in "Topical archives"? It gets brought up every other week. No, every civil war in history has had foreign involvement, the main players in this war are all Syrian. The various sub-conflicts have their own articles. This article is about the war between Syrian factions, and their foreign backers are of course listed. Just like in Spanish civil war, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I'm sure not every civil war :P, but obviously most. For instance, Europe was involved in the American Civil War. The Syrian Civil War is not Korea or Vietnam in terms of Civil Wars with foreign involvement. If that changes, we'll note it, but it hasn't. --Monochrome_Monitor 13:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I can't think of any with no amount of foreign involvement off hand, but yeah, the point remains. FunkMonk (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, title should reflect common usage. News articles report war in Syria three times more without word 'civil'. example is here It may have been only a civil war, but is no longer. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

"only" a civil war is inaccurate. It is a really ugly civil war. Legacypac (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way but thought it'd be worth noting that Obama called it the "Syrian war" in his speech last night. -KaJunl (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thought some more, I do have an opinion - think we should leave it as Syrian Civil War for now, and it will become obvious we time if we should change the name (i.e. all media will stop calling it civil war). I do predict that "civil" may drop off the name eventually, but I don't think we're at that point yet. -KaJunl (talk) 13:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

More thoughts - went on Google news and searched "syrian civil war" and "syrian war" and "syrian war" is yielding more results. No idea what exactly it searches, but I think Google news is geared towards recent usage. Also comes up with a lot of recent articles showing just "Syrian war." Doesn't mean we should change this yet, but worth considering. -KaJunl (talk) 14:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Glad you are taking a considered approach. A search for Syrian War will return all results for both Syrian War and Syrian Civil War so it will always get more hits. Syrian War is a short form of Syrian Civil War, but that does not stop it from being a Civil war. The other problem with Syrian war is there have been wars in Syria since the dawn of time, so we would need to add dates to the name. This is the first Civil war in the country/historic region though (surprisingly). Legacypac (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

here are accurate searches, which show non civil order of magnitude higher than civil: general search trends 5 vs 1 in favor of non civil, civil 1.4M results and non-civil 22.4M results So 5 times as many in searches, and 15 times as manu in results, I think it is clear! 178.148.10.191 (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

@Legacypac thanks, quick question though - you're saying searches with quotes for "syrian war" will bring up "syrian civil war"? that's not clear from the results i'm getting but maybe you just mean the overall count number does include or something? or perhaps it wasn't clear that i was including quotations marks. for what the poster right above me did (no username) i see what you mean, but i was just searching the exact phrase "syrian war" in the news results. it does seem that usage of "syrian war" is spiking but that's just based on what i'm seeing in the news, nothing too scientific (other than what i mentioned above) -KaJunl (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Change to 'civil war' to WW3 . It is not the truth is first *casualty* of war as commonly quoted. I aee war is direct result of lie. This seems to be seemingly independent of human action. Is like general property of universe , as the water flowing down, to go to equilibrium . Lie is excited state , like market bubble have to burst, sooner the better. The amount of lie on 'by deception' side grow exponentially since old lies need to be cover up by magnitude of new lies. That why lie may help on short run but never last permanently. All history teach liars lose all wars. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm largely not bothered with it being called either Syrian War or Syrian Civil War, they bth currenty hit the mark. There however is a point to be made for it. I've also already came acros wordings like "The second Cold War" Especially since Russia's intervention and US's reaction. some mention it the precursor for the third world war, seeing as how many bombings in France have happened, and in africa and.. where was it? I think we can safely say the war has since long reached far beyond the borders of Syria as a country. But the main factions are still Syrian. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 10:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

German minister accuses Qatar

German minister accuses Qatar of funding Islamic State fighters http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-germany-qatar-idUSKBN0GK1I720140820 87.252.229.3 (talk)

But how Germany wil force ME-countries to pay bill for refuges in Germany? Germany is stil under ocupation but saying who ocupy her will be anti semitic intrests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

War was planned by USA a while ago

Wesley Clark talks about it. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 14:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

This comes from a source which also reports on this kind of thing, so at first glance it seems about as reliable as Alex Jones. Whether it is true or not, we need a reliable source before we can add it to the article. I'd also like to see a longer video where more context is shown. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I found a section about it in Wesley Clark's article here. I still don't think it is major enough to be added to this article. It appears to be an account of a conversation about military strategy he wrote in a book of his in 2003. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why you compare Democracy Now with that hoax.. Anyways, he was Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO, so seems to be important enough person whose account is not irrelevant. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Again, the most context I could gather was from that Alexander Higgins post (he's the guy who put it on Youtube in the first place, and the post he made about it is here, and is mentioned in that Youtube video's description). Democracy Now does not provide me with any more context. TV channels broadcast interviews in full - it's that person's own words, a single politician's own words, who went on to run for president a year after he first published the claims. For all I know, it's an out-of-context snippet that Alexander Higgins (a blogger at best) spun into something greater. That's not journalism. Wesley Clark was also a presidential candidate, and that is the capacity in which he made that claim (in his book, not Democracy Now) - so there is also political gain to be made. Anybody can write a book with a controversial claim to make lots of money if their name is already big. Finally, there's also the matter of there being a bunch of other countries which were invaded by the US during this period but not mentioned in that list, and also countries on that list which were never invaded by the US. So, it is clear the list, whatever it was, formed no real 'plan' for military strategy. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

User:BurritoBazooka why you 'still don't think' ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this, regardless if its true or not, is best left out (at least for now). Unless one can find MULTIPLE hard sources, this is a volatile claim. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Volatile? [2] good enough? 176.221.76.3 (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

it is hard enough for any hardhead - add it to header.99.90.196.227 (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Relevance. It's better suited for the Wesley Clark article and it's already there. I have no doubt that the West is using civil wars as part of its bait and bleed strategy all over the world, but much like Wesley Clark, that's a personal belief. I don't have hard evidence or sources, so I'm not going to add it to the article. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

change required minimum work. We have the word taking already in header

• .. taking place in Syria.
• .Taking out Syria was a Pentagon plan.

the word 'place' may be used in

• and place puppet gov.
• .Taking out Syria and place puppet gov. was a Pentagon plan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Even assuming the list is completely true and valid, still, there is still nothing to suggest that this list of seven countries is relevant to this specific war in Syria. For all the reader knows, war in Syria would be inevitable even if the US never made this list in 2001. Original research is being committed in suggesting that this war has to do with that list, without evidence of that specific fact. Perhaps Clark's list is more relevant in one of these articles:

• Interventionism (politics)
• American imperialism
• Foreign policy of the United States

--BurritoBazooka (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

you can add it there too, if you decide, but do not dilute now the subject of discussion.

you are not supposed to think if 'completely true and valid' you supposed to check if it is verifiable and/or sourced in reliable sources. You argue before it is not WP:RS now you going clear against policy with your 'completely true and valid'. You as log-in wiki editor you are assumed to not having the ability to consider what is true what not (Is it right?) . What is, WP:OR to add word 'out' which is exactly like Clark is quoted. How do you propose it to be worded? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I said. For the purposes of this discussion, I meant "okay, let's assume hypothetically this is true and valid, and then see whether it can be in the article". I said it is OR because even if this list never existed, the war in Syria could still have happened. There is nothing linking this list to this specific war in Syria, even if the seven countries was quoted in every major news outlet and every politician was repeating it over and over again until somebody important says "the current civil war in Syria is part of that list". That link is only a conspiracy theory, even if the list is true and valid. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The linking list of several countries Pentagon plan to do war is a word 'Syria'.

Wesley Clark used words 'war' 'taking out' 'Syria' . What is OR to use exact quote if derivation of it (still in exact context) you see somehow as against wp policy? Do you compose argument that he used several countries as a list ('that this list of seven countries is relevant') and taking one state of the list here - Syria - will be OR because of what ? I can't think what nonsenses (as i do not see here OR) perhaps cheery picking may be persuasive for confused minds? Why do you think now using Syria out of list is OR? Is using c from a b c d e is WP:OR? To have contextual context one cant write everything what is in WP:RS but need to do selection. Syria war there and Syria war here match. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Also Clark mention the paper he refer to, as he get the spoken info, is kind of secret, so perhaps secret argument may be used against; but then you have to delete Washington papers and false flag lord Tolken bay and may other leaked army crimes against humanity. I do not say any our servicemen is crooked war criminal - i believe most are good and i know some very nice persons. Anyway the policy is made behind Pentagon in some shadow assembles which servicemen used blindly to follow.

Also we cant go anywhere if you will use antysemantic conspiracy theory phrase. The corect term is de conspiracy. The Clark show existing secret conspiracy, as any army conspire , do not forward its plan in open. This should be obvious and such empty argument discounted from any serious dispute. Again any army conspire and do not have plan open to public. So confirm you will use semantic or put dictionary of your antisemantic terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

A proven conspiracy theory is a conspiracy... The part of WP:OR I'm referring to is WP:SYNTH. What you are synthesising is that there is a link between this 2011-present Syrian civil war and the future war mentioned in 2001. This war might not be a part of the US plan. No sources suggest that this civil war is part of that US plan - it could still be another party's "plan". I can't state my case more clearly than that - the link being drawn between Clark's list and this war is WP:SYNTH. Also, point I haven't raised before is that list said "seven countries in five years" -- five years after 2001 is 2006, so if we want to take Clark's word as truth, then a war must have happened in Syria before 2006.

A similar case is how in Cecil John Rhodes' Last Will and Testament, it is written that Britain should extend its influence through the British Empire, taking over the rest of the world. Is the UN Security Council a secret British plot? That's WP:SYNTH until you find a source proving that. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I getting impression that you are not familiar with the subject. What Wesley Clark did say? He did not say the war will be in the year 2001. Do you draw WP:SYNTH because deconspired false flag gas attack, higher than in Libya resistance and world powers opposition make impossible to finalize the stated Pentagon goal in Clark mentioned time frame? The goal will be never achieved, but this do not change the fact what he say before the present war. Do You argue that W Clark mentioned another war to 'take out' Syria not this war to 'take out' Syria? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 10:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, but it still doesn't make it definitive. Anyone with a straight mind could predict something to go wrong somewhere in that neighbourhood. Yes, granted.. I'm stating the obvious in a more general way but the principle is still the same. Because someone made a list means very little, escpecially on a wiki page which is supposed to be objiective and sourced. And even if it was true, and the US planned all of this all along.... we'll probably only find out wether that is true when they either achievd their goal, or failed it. But regardless of that, it doesn't change anything about the war currently in progress. And furthermore, like Bazookaburrito explained, the war in Syria could just as easily have taken place even if the US was drawing rozes on fences... Or do you think those arab people with their believes are only doing this because "Its the US' grandmaster plan". Don't get me wrong, I think the US certainly washes their hands in dirt in some way.. but its not being added until PROVEN! 195.109.63.17 (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Anyone with a straight mind could predict something to go wrong somewhere in that neighbourhood. Wow! We have a psychic here! They MUST be right :) 178.148.10.191 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Topic being discussed here is very relevant for the Foreign involvement section of this article.. so no need to talk about delegating it to other (maybe also relevant) articles. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit (minor)

this article is on a list of articles needing help with spelling and grammar. I just went through the lede with a fairly light hand. I do not believe that I have introduced any meaning changes so I figure these are not reverts, but perhaps people may want to take a look, given the contentious nature of the topic. I am stopping here for now. Elinruby (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! -KaJunl (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit request 6/12/2015

In the section "Course of events", sub-section "Escalation (November 2011 – March 2012)", remove the fourth paragraph which begins "On January 17, 2012 ...". Replace with "An internet survey of more than 1,000 people across 18 countries in the Middle East and North Africa in December 2011 found that 81% thought that Bashar al-Assad should resign. 55% of the Syrians polled did not think their president should resign, but it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions from this because only 98 Syrians were included in the poll." The source for this is the following BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17155349 Many thanks. Minisilly (talk)

 Needs discussion How about "On January 17, 2012 the UK's Guardian reported on a YouGov Siraj poll on Syria commissioned by The Doha Debates funded by the Qatar Foundation, which found that 55% of Syrians supported President Bashar al-Assad. However, Syrians were only a small subset of the larger group polled." Seems more neutral? I agree with you that the original paragraph is biased especially given the details you provided. Maybe this is worth taking out altogether? Quoting a poll, only then to say that the poll is not credible, kind of takes away any noteworthiness. It seems like it was included because the Guardian reported on it, and possibly to try to give a picture of public perception of the government at that time (even if only based on a very small sample). Or alternatively, could have just been that a pro-gov person edited it in and no one ever checked it or edited it out. -KaJunl (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy for you to remove the paragraph altogether. The main thing is not to leave it in its present form as it's misleading. Many thanks. Minisilly (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I see that this hasn't been actioned yet. I'm changing the answered status back to "no". Minisilly (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

rename page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

this isn't a traditional civil war. this involves transnational and many states. as well as frequent spillovers in neighbouring countries. it should be called "Syrian War (2011-present)" or "War in Syria (2011-present)"--Stefvh96 (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Sheesh, read the section right above this one. FunkMonk (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cleanup issue

I may take some time to get to this, but the prose in the article needs some serious cleanup. It is right now mostly in proseline format, and it needs to be rewritten into a more natural narrative. I have tagged the article as such to alert interested editors to the problem, and am leaving this notice here explaining what needs to be done to improve the text. The information is all good, it just needs some work for stylistic purposes. --Jayron32 17:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Tourism

"Tourism in Syria has been severely affected by the conflict. In 2013, revenue of tourism industry was 94% lower than pre-conflict figures. Around 289 tourist sites have been damaged in conflict.[114]"

This seems like a fairly callous way to finish up the top-of-page summery, and a little pointless considering that there's a link to the "Tourism in Syria" page further down under "Impact." I'd remove it myself, if not for the page lock. Thanks. 2601:43:1:FEFF:15C3:2733:FBB3:D813 (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The remaining 6% 'tourism' could be a statistical calculation of journalists and others entering the region - or entering the nation's borders for reasons other than merely vacation or looking around. Should that even be CALLED 'tourism'? Tourism is defined as "travel for pleasure." I would like to see a serious paragraph on agricultural failure because of the higher heat, attributed to climate disruption. MaynardClark (talk) 02:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The higher C02 concentration mean higher agricultural yield in arid condition. In another words for the same amount of diffused water when CO2 concentration grow - yield grow. What/why do you read/bring/quote/think temperature in this climatic zone directly inhibit plants growth, or depress yield? 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you count refuges? Then 11 million 'tourist' may enjoy visiting Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe they are counting the jihadists flocking to the Caliphate ? Death tourism is a thing I believe in The Netherlands, and appears to be catching on in Syria in another context. Legacypac (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Russian Lisiting

Why is Russia listed on two sides of the war ?--MarcusPearl95 (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Article is locked, editor kiked out, false ref used. Asking ver link to VER in related art cause blocking of some IPs and threat to block me. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 07:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

moderate Syrian rebels

first use - wikilink

change

On 11 September 2014 the US Congress expressed support to give President Obama the $500 million he wanted to arm and train moderate Syrian rebels.

to

On 11 September 2014 the US Congress expressed support to give President Obama the $500 million he wanted to arm and train [moderate Syrian rebels].

99.90.196.227 (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done - there is no article for the moderates only, so I linked to Syrian opposition which includes moderates. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)  Not done somebody else can redlink if they think that is acceptable. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

re: 'there is no article for the moderates only' so left it red. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

linking to some other not indicating what it is,is wrong. You can't link [Moon walking] to [moon walking (dance)] because one is only a film the other live performance witnessed by thousands. Numerous media feed moderate Syrian rebels. If you do not want intentionally mislead the audience - left it red linked. Somebody will quickly create moderate Syrian rebels.

the article you linked to moderate Syrian rebels have only two occurrences of word moderate*

• Moderate Islamic preacher ... but soon resigned
• moderate Islamists could form

none of those sentences are related to [moderate rebels].

the antisemantic or undescribed therm [moderate rebel] problem 2189 wykip articles. All apparently with Syria context. This is additional reason to left moderate Syrian rebels link red for now.

Please sign your comments. I undid the revision, somebody else can redlink. I don't personally redlink. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

But if you can link to other articles do you think this will be more appropriate >> moderate Syrian rebels. 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah There you can have blue link and good info.

well oiled lie

While several times oil fields are mentioned there is no info where the oil go. Us saying they knew about it for years but did not bombed pipelines on wells (the oil truck convoys) because this will release carbon dioxide to atmosphere. The free also media mention US didn’t bomb the terrorist convoy because it they bombs may mutilate someone. US is on record saying they bombed it on 15 but saying this after Ru bombed it on 18 Nov. By this lie is confirmed by Us and RU sides fact that oil tankers roll the deash stolen oil somewhere. This info is missing. So it is lie by omission[3][4]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Oil accusations/strategies by parties need a separate section in the article

Oil is mentioned a lot, and there are a lot of accusations now between warring parties about who is trading oil with whom. There are discussions on this talk page about news articles and opinion pieces accusing countries of trading oil with ISIS. Especially coming from states, these accusations are notable enough for a separate section (though they should be represented neutrally: who made the accusation against whom, where were oil tankers destroyed when, how long has ISIS been transporting oil before attacks on oil tankers and wells began, etc). The accusations themselves, coming from states, are part of a geopolitical strategy for the war in Syria - whether they are true or not. Also, restriction of oil trade is now seen as a key part in the strategy to fight ISIL. What do others think? --BurritoBazooka (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Would you add also too what say leaders/spokespersons/webs/tweets of each terrorists group? Or they supporters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.196.227 (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

invalid source

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IschF-ihjS0

please remove from the article.. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

also, sentence ... which would have threatened the Syrian government with targeted sanctions if it continued military actions against protestors. misquotes its source. 178.148.10.191 (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)