Template:Pbneutral

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Syria C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Arab world C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force

Template:Hidden infoboxes

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

Given that US involvement in supporting Color Revolts is well recorded, and considering the evidence that - far from 'freedom-loving' home grown protesters - it the US that helped start and maintain the Syrian Civil War, would not section on this be helpful in understanding the conflict? 92.20.224.168 (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if you have material you think is important for the article, and reliable sources, then you add it to the article, I believe that is the idea of Wikipedia. Sayerslle (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It has been well known for years that the US funded opposition groups and their propaganda long before 2011. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-us-secretly-backed-syria-opposition/ and http://gulfnews.com/news/region/libya/us-document-reveals-cooperation-between-washington-and-brotherhood-1.1349207 FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

foreign plots. I mean I believe mossadeq in iran was targeted , i'm sure the world is a very cynical place - (except the puresystematic torture Assad regime,[1] and saint Vladimir Putin Russia regime and (not at all shiapriestriddenIran , they don't act other than in a saintly way of course , never any chicanery there obviously) - -so just add what you believe is important to add with RS. just do it with a bit of honesty in your mind and ask yourself - are you being critical minded in a non biased wp:NEUTRAL way or are you out to highlight any POINT-y material that exists anywhere that supports a assad regime narrative that you embrace- assad regime hafez-bashar always argues its only critics are all foreign puppets, no? Sayerslle (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the peaceful uprisings in Bahrain and Eastern Saudia are the only real foreign plots, right Sayer? Evil Iranian Shia plots! Not to forget the uprising in Eastern Ukraine, where civilians are being mercilessly shelled. But I guess lives are worth nothing when they are anti-western. Oh, and if the dictator is Saudi funded, as in Egypt. Not a single noise from you about those, Sayer. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No we are not arguing that only pro-western rebellions are legitimate, what we are arguing is that just as the west has there own bias the Russians do too and that parroting the Kremlin's propaganda is no different than parroting Washington's propaganda. Your entire view of this war seems to revolve around two ideas: firstly that all western sources are biased and secondly that only Russian sources are objective. No noise comes from Sayer about anti-western uprisings, however the ONLY noise that comes from YOU about pro-western uprisings is that they are all a foreign plot devised by the evil westerners. To this accusation you declare that your sources are unbiased Russian propaganda is more truthful than western propaganda. Why? Because Russian propaganda told you so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.30.242 (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So where have I even once cited a Russian source? Is gulfnews.com Russian propaganda? Keep useless knee-jerk accusations out of this, and deal with the facts. Funny how quiet this page has become, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ funkmonk - this cartoon can help explain to you the quiet maybe [2]Sayerslle (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still no sight of the "big terrorist" among the Bahraini protesters... Hasn't sped up western intervention, funnily enough, and the world has long forgotten. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

its maybe 'quiet'/flattenedbybarrelbombsin east Aleppo tooSayerslle (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this Kenneth Roth?[3][4][5] FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you change the subject - that's the middle square on the left ticked of the propagandists [Bingo] card] Sayerslle (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, yes, it's a purely Russian thing, though I remember notifying you of derailment multiple times in the past. Got a Russian grandparent, perhaps? But yes. Salafist thugs are hiding in civilian areas of Aleppo, Syria is simply responding the same way your Ukrainian friends are doing to the separatists (as much "their own people" as the Salafists of Syria, if not more). Should be fine by the pro-NATO handbook then. So why be a hypocrite? FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

notforum - no point responding anyhow - its a morally ambiguous universe. you know i'm naïve enough to believe Assad rleased the thugs in the past to create ths kind of situation, and has left them pretty much untouched, until very recently as the situation has changed, and meanwhile barrel bombed whole districts of civilians , (and gassed them - whatever the partisangirls, and Hezbollah, and putinists, and western shills say.) Sayerslle (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"No forum", so what's your point? Baghdadi was released by the US, as were plenty other ISIS leaders (straight from Guantanamo, does that make the US an Assad ally?). The guys Assad released ended up in Ahrar al Sham (still considered "good rebels" by many), not ISIS, and they were released as appeasement to the opposition. Divide and conquer is the oldest, most effective trick in the book. Of course Assad will exploit intra-Jihadi turf wars, anything else would be insane. FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the Assad government highlights how "Syria became an independent republic in 1946, though democratic rule was ended by a CIA-supported coup in March 1949". Not only does this call into question statements about ‘home-grown’ protests, but is a another indication that this conflict could be the result of Western involvement. Might Wikipedia reflect this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.162.140 (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, should the Syrian Civil War (section) reflect past US involvement in the undermining the Syrian Government?

92.24.233.185 (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lets start with Nusra front

old strength in article: 7,000-8,000 new current strength: 5,000-6,000

source: http://www.heartsofiron4.com/r/xzu79nziq7

Jumada (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to SOHR, ISIS now has 50,000 fighters in Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given the ever-growing concerns about ISIS terror gangs, why does Wikipedia continue to maintain the statement that: "the vast majority of abuses, as well as the largest in scale, were being committed by the Syrian government"? In light of latest events, should not this questionable statement be updated? 92.24.233.185 (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is so obviously biased that it should at least be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do it then! We are told to be bold as editors. Its not Wikipedia continuing to maintain this statement. Its we editors not being bold enough to remove controversial and unsourced statements.

TonyClarke (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if Wikipedia had a four-column conflict infobox template, that would be preferable. Heck, I'd even take a five-column one, since Jabhat al-Nusra has clashed with the FSA and other groups in the past. I mean, we could really go crazy without the constraints Wikipedia imposes, and maybe it's better this way. But we are left with the problem of how to arrange the combatants.

Obviously, the Syrian government and the "mainstream" armed opposition groups oppose one another. The Islamic State is currently fighting both the government (captured an airbase this weekend) and the opposition (battling for supremacy in Aleppo, among other places), as well as the Kurds in both Syria and Iraq, which has been a well-publicized part of the conflict lately. But the Islamic State could also be seen as a co-belligerent of the rest of the opposition against the government...except for the part where the government appears to have played them off one another to the point where the Islamic State has arguably spent more of its time, energy, blood, and ammo against anti-Assad fighters and civilians than it has fighting the Syrian Army.

The Kurds have cooperated with the government at times, but they also took up arms against the Syrian Army fairly early in the fighting and continue to stake out their own territory much more aggressively than they did before the conflict began. The Kurds have clashed with opposition fighters at times, but it seems to me they have largely acted as co-belligerents (if not allies) against both the government and the Islamic State.

So my preference would be to go back to presenting the government and Islamic State in their own columns and including the Kurds with a line separator in the opposition column, before FutureTrillionaire's edit. But I'm interested in hearing other editors' take on this. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to our map, the cities of Hasakah and Qamishli are under joint government-Kurdish control. This indicates a level of cooperation between the government and the Kurds. Those two parties rarely fought against each other, so it seems like the least unfavorable option is to put the Kurds in the same column as the government, but separated by a horizontal line.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to do it similar to how the Bosnian War infobox presents the sides? The Kurdish militias and government hardly seemed to be on the same side in 2011, 2012, or most of 2013. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Issue has been discussed about a dozen times and the result was always - ISIS in the rebel column with a double separation line. Number 1 - it is not possible to make four columns. Number 2 - ISIS was in an alliance with the rest of the anti-Assad forces for a full year before they turned on each other. Number 3 - Most reliable sources consider ISIS still one of the anti-Assad forces and when talking about the ISIS vs FSA/IF/Nusra conflict they refer to it as inter-rebel factional fighting. Even SOHR counts ISIS fatalities in the overall toll as part of the opposition force's death toll. Number 4 - Kurds are playing their own game separate from everyone else and that's why they have a column of their own. They are at the moment in an alliance with the Syrian government in Hasakah vs ISIS and in an alliance with the FSA vs ISIS in Aleppo. Although they don't like Assad they are not part of the anti-Assad forces because they don't care if he falls or remains, just as long as nobody buts into their bussiness and leaves them alone to run their own country. And in the future, please discuss the issue more broadly with other editors before making rather unilateral edits. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thoughts. Please review WP:BRD before telling me how to edit Wikipedia. Thank you! -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of WP:BRD but this is a rather controversial issue and besides BRD also states Care and diplomacy should be exercised. EkoGraf (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure about ISIS & Assad always having been enemies, though certainly are now. See:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/08/22/should-the-us-work-with-assad-to-fight-isis/assad-has-never-fought-isis-before?utm_content=buffer2c2c3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer#

http://online.wsj.com/articles/assad-policies-aided-rise-of-islamic-state-militant-group-1408739733

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10585391/Syrias-Assad-accused-of-boosting-al-Qaeda-with-secret-oil-deals.html Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Divide and conquer, the oldest trick in the book. ISIS and the other insurgents were allied for a long time (still are, conducted joint operation in Lebanon a few weeks ago), and yes, the regime fought them from the beginning. But why should they intervene when ISIS began slaughtering other terrorists? Assad did the only sane thing. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Kurds & ISIS seem to be out for themselves, maybe ISIS & the Kurds should be together w/a double line between them. Something similar to the Bosnian War infobox might also work. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense, they are fighting each other. If anything, grouping the Kurds with the regime would make more sense than that, since they don't fight. But yet again, what we have is the most accurate, as ISIL is simply assimilating the rest of the Islamist groups. FunkMonk (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the FSA isn't "Islamist", and they've asked for U.S. help in fighting ISIS: [6] [7] Just because some FSA units have defected to ISIS doesn't make them bedfellows, at all. ISIS has probably been responsible for more FSA casualties than it has Syrian Army casualties. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Free Syrian Army"? What is that but merely a name? They're militarily about as significant in Syria as Fatah is in Gaza. FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

<Reduce indent> What about the idea of arranging the infobox like the Bosnian War infobox? Is it even possible or are the various factions of the civil war too complex in their shifting alliances for such an idea? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is of course a lot easier to make such an arrangement with hindsight. This war is ongoing, so there is no such clear overview yet. Trying to neaten things up would be way too premature. FunkMonk (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So should it be done whenever the war ends? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it turns out such a scheme makes sense. Again, the point is that it's too early to know. Many of these "groups" (or rather just names of various constellations) have little significance and will largely be forgotten anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with EkoGraf. Especially since the other "rebel" group are slowly but surely being absorbed by ISIL. FunkMonk (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's that too. At this rate, soon more than half of ISIS will be former FSA/IF units. EkoGraf (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the most recent entry of Syrian_Civil_War#ISIS_offensive_and_continued_fighting_.28July_2014_-_ongoing.29 Tabqa airbase is mentioned. Is Tabqa just an airbase, or also a quarter or a town? We don't seem to have an entry for either and the news reports are also not too precise. Maybe somebody could also update the disambiguation page. ---Tobias1984 (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is the town of Tabqa, on the bank of the lake, and the Tabqa air base some dozens of miles to the south. EkoGraf (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerents of the Syrian Civil War was apparently copied from this article and doesn't add anything new. Therefore I have nominated it for deletion some time ago. Can the resident editors here join the discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belligerents of the Syrian Civil War) to generate more thoughts on the issue? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not let it be, and shorten the section here instead? We want this article to be shorter after all. FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War exists & seems to more advanced, the Belligerents of the Syrian Civil War article seems redundant. Shorten the relevant section here, but have the info at List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War. Either merge Belligerents of the Syrian Civil War into List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War or have it redirect there (if there's no unique info in the article). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to transfer here the discussion on Syrian Civil War maps legend - which has been low-level ongoing at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan, dealing with how to color Israeli Golan Heights and whether Israel should be added as a belligerent on the Syrian war maps.

• I would like to point out that on June 2013, a consensus was reached to color Israeli-controlled Western Golan as striped (territory claimed by Syria, but de-facto controlled by Israel since 1967), in order to differentiate Western Golan from the rest of Syria since Syrian War battles are ongoing on Eastern Golan (Quneitra Governorate).

• 

  It is also evident that the community has established that Israel is not a participant of the Syrian Civil War (so far), which is evident from discussions, archived at Talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel and from WP:SCWGS-related motion (amendment of WP:ARBPIA on June 2013), which is specifically drawing the borderline between generally unrelated preceding Arab-Israeli conflict and the current Syrian Civil War; quote "The Arbitration Committee concludes that the topic of the Syrian Civil War does not fit within the category of Arab-Israeli disputes, although certain specific issues relating to that war would fall within that topic."
• On April-May 2014 several users began a new discussion at talk:Syrian Kurdistan, with some proposing to color Israeli Golan Heights as white or blue and adding Israel into belligerents' legend. Apparently most of them are not aware of community decisions prior to April 2014. The attempt to add Israeli forces on Golan Heights as part of Syrian belligerents was however shortly reverted [8].

  

• On August 23-25 user:Supreme Deliciousness again attempted to change Syrian Civil War-related maps to reflect the opinion that Israeli forces on Western Golan should be presented as part of the Syrian Civil War.
  

I'm herewith asking for opinions whether a long-standing consensus should be changed and Syrian Civil War maps, which currently present 4 belligerents - Syrian Government / Syrian Opposition / ISIS / Syrian Kurdistan, should also be added with 5th belligerent Israel (add /do not add). Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 07:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• First of all, consensus can change, just like the facts on the ground can. Secondly, Sopher99, who featured aggressively in many discussions, has been indef banned, including his several sockpuppets, which "contributed" all over the place in relation to Syria, so who knows what the "community" would agree on today. Thirdly, Israel does not need to be in the infobox just because it features on a war map, and could qualify as "certain specific issues relating to that war would fall within that topic." FunkMonk (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, but there should be a new consensus to change a previous consensus. Some people obviously challenge the previous consensus (4 belligerents on war maps), thus i open this thread.GreyShark (dibra) 08:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree with considering Israel a belligerent, if that's the proposal on the table. But I think it's appropriate to shade the map to indicate that Israel controls a part of what is de jure Syria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not the proposal on the table, Greyshark is not presenting this issue in an accurate way. No one is adding Israel as a belligerent. The map shows the "current military situation in Syria" and it should be pointed out that Israel is occupying part of Syria, not that Israel is a belligerent. Please take a look at the map I added here where the Golan heights is in white and the text under it with the dotted line separating that part of Syria that Israel is occupying from the civil war. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For that purpose we can stripe the Western Golan (as decided on June 2013) - which has already been implemented on Syrian Civil War map in the past [9] (January 2014 version); However, adding Israeli forces to map certainly implies it is a belligerent.GreyShark (dibra) 08:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether we consider it a belligerent or not is irrelevant to the fact that Israel does physically interact with the undisputed belligerents in various ways. This is a fact, and if we keep Israel out of such a map, it will just be a ridiculous elephant in the room. And again, this has no bearing on whether Israel should be in the infobox as a belligerent or not, it is a separate issue. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one wants to put Israel in a map about Syria. The map shows the "current military situation in Syria", and we should point out that Israel is occupying part of Syria. We are not adding Israel as a belligerent. Greyshark has not presented this correctly. Please look at the map I added where the part of Syria that Israel is occupying is in white.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The striped Western Golan (without adding Israel as belligerent) is well implemented in the Detailed Syrian Civil War map.GreyShark (dibra) 09:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the Golan Heights should be stripped, not colored. However, ultimately, it really doesn't make much of a difference.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greyshark is not presenting this correctly: Greyshark talks about an "Israeli Golan Heights", no such thing exists. We are talking about an area that is in Syria. In this discussion: talk:Location map/data/Syria|thumbnail we talked about a location map of Syria and it was closed by a non-admin. The consensus there was that both a striped or non striped map could be used based on a case by case situation. Israel is not occupying stripes in Golan, so that kind of map shouldn't be used here. ·In this case the map shows the "Military situation in Syria", so not only active participants in the Syrian civil war. Look at the map to the right of this text. At Syrian Kurdistan talkpage we talked about this issue and it was consensus to have the Israeli-occupied Golan as white and it separated with a dotted line "(under Israeli occupation)": Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan#Military_map_issues --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 4th time in the past year that you are trying to push 5th belligerent into the main Syrian Civil War map.GreyShark (dibra) 15:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

INAPPROPRIATE CANVASSING: Greyshark has also went all over the place posting this: [10] which is clearly inappropriate canvassing. The discussion is NOT to ad Israel as 5th belligerent to Syrian Civil War maps, but to show that in a map showing the "Current military situation in Syria" Israel is occupying the Golan heights. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image used throughout Syrian civil war articles is named "Syrian Civil War", not "current military situation in Syria".GreyShark (dibra) 15:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. The image is presented in articles as "Current military situation in Syria" Israel is occupying part of Syria - before and during the Syrian civil war. It may not be a belligerent, but it is not presented as such in the map, only that it is occupying part of Syria. The Israeli-occupied part of Syria is specifically separated from the factions fighting each other. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are warned that throwing allegations on others with no basis is violating Wikipedia guidelines.GreyShark (dibra) 15:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have indeed acted inappropriately as you have opened this discussion and posted comments on people talkpages misrepresenting the map I added.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Israel is not involved in the civil war, therefore should not be shown. If any side where to invade Israeli occupied Golan Heights, only than should it be included, but at the current state, do not add Israel.—SPESH531Other 02:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unbased accusations against other users in Wikipedia is punishable. This is the last time i advice you to remove this allegation on canvassing before i issue a complaint.GreyShark (dibra) 17:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Israel has bombed Syrian targets inside Syria plenty of times the last three years, and treated anti-Assad fighters in the Golan. So yes, Israel is involved, but not as a very active belligerent. And yet again, that is irrelevant to this map. FunkMonk (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]