Template:Pbneutral

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

This article is of interest to the following 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

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 [6].

  

• 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]

• 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]

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 [7] (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]

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]

• 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: [8] 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]

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 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]

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]

Syria bombed Lebanon multiple times (targets of insurgents), Hezbollah of Lebanon (part of Lebanese government) occupies significant parts of Qalamun mountains on the Syrian side, Syria occupies several sectors on the Lebanese border since 1976. This is a mess, but Lebanon is still not on the map, neither is Hezbollah and neither should be Israel, which is so far the least involved.GreyShark (dibra) 17:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon has not attacked inside Syrian territory, Israel has. That is a pretty significant difference. FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Republic attacked inside Lebanon, Iraq and allegedly Turkey; Turkey and Jordan attacked inside what used to be Syria and Israel never admitted attacking inside Syria except some border incidents. There is a clear mis-proportion in trying to put Israel on belligerents' list or map.GreyShark (dibra) 07:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Israel's role is hard to depict correctly here. They should not be considered a regular belligerent, as their military activity is extremely low comparing to other parties. They are also playing their own game, just using opportunities created by Syria's internal conflict. However, their support for rebels has been confirmed and I think they should be listed in the infobox as follows:

1. as supporters of the non-ISIS opposition,

2. with annotation of armed involvement, linking to a section explaining it further, which needs to be created

--Emesik (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with users Supreme Deliciousness, FunkMonk and Emesik that Israel is involved in the war, though at a lower level than the main players. It is to an extent using the situation to its own interest, pretty much like the Kurds, and intervening at least with strikes. For the map, I think it is fair to keep Israeli-occupied Golan as white and in the legend have it separated with a dotted line "(under Israeli occupation)", as Supreme Deliciousness suggested. Hezbollah is already mentioned under the belligerents, and is allied to government forces, so it does not need its own color. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colleagues, please don't title a discussion as "Discussion", that doesn't say anything, it's equivalent to not titling it at all. I can't react on a discussion without title. If this is still about '...Adding Israel...', then just remove the extra subsection-title 'Discussion'; if it's about something else then give it a real title (not as sub-section but as real section). --Corriebertus (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The map is supposed to accurately represent the military situation in Syria; ergo, any map which did not delineate Israeli held territory would be indulging in a factual inaccuracy. How the occupation is shown, I am not particular about; stripes, shades, stars, polka dots, not bothered. But presenting Israeli controlled territory as Syrian government controlled seems out of the question to me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What was done in the past was make Golan Heights gray, being the same gray as Turkey, Israel, Iraq, etc. Then their was a second version of the map where Golan Heights was blue, and a third barely used version where it was white. It has never been green or red.—SPESH531Other 04:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not situation in Syria, but in the Syrian Civil War (not that there is any difference now, when Syria doesn't exist as a whole de-facto country any more). Notice that the title of the file is "Syrian Civil War".GreyShark (dibra) 07:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sure would like to add some intelligent (?!??) remark of mine to this discussion. However, the subject of discussion is unclear (in other words: non-existent). The first editor on a discussion section should state clearly the dilemma he wants us to deliberate on. Unfortunately, our right honorable friend GreyShark neglected to do so. No wonder then that the discussion bleeds dead, because everyone chooses the 'subject of discussion' to be a different one. So, please, if any of you still wants us to discuss something focusedly and effectively, simply start a new section with a really clear discussion issue. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is to be a vote thing, where we decide on whether or not to add Israel, the vote (in my opinion) should be like that of the 2012 Puerto Rico referendum (odd example, for Syria, but I digress). Two questions, the first would be along the lines of, "Should Israeli control of the Golan Heights be colored, similar to the regime or IS?" and a second question, "If no, should the Golan Heights be represented as striped, solid gray (similar to that of other sovereign states), or a lighter gray?" I believe this would be a good idea to decide on what to do with Golan Heights.—SPESH531Other 20:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Leave Israeli controlled areas the same gray as all surrounding states. If, and only if, a Syrian Civil War participant overruns the area should the area be colored as held by a Syrian Civil War participant. Coloring the area white, green, purple or anything else turns Israel into a Belligerent, which it is not. Israel has restricted it actions to border protection. Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to make it the original status quo, (gray), until this is decided.—SPESH531Other 20:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a note that someone branded the map boxes as "current military situation in Syria", whereas it actually refers to "military situation in the Syrian Civil War" (map is titled "Syrian Civil War"). The "Syria" thing on some boxes led some editors to argue to add Israel to the map, because "it occupies former parts of Syria", but by saying "current military situation in the Syrian Civil War", addition of Israel to map legend is completely unjustified. The only thing is perhaps to use the striped Golan version of the map, to show that the area is disputed between Israel and the Ba'athist Syrian Republic.GreyShark (dibra) 12:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you remove that it's under occupation and keep it as "Israeli Golan Heights", or "annexed" which you have done many times in different places. There is no such thing as it's recognized as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. That there is a civil war does not change that and it should be reflected. Maybe we could add that it's since 1967 to clarify that Israel isn't a party to the civil war but trying to not only remove the fact that it's occupied but also saying it's "Israeli" is unacceptable. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iris, let's be clear: A. The status of the Golan is not the issue here (how it is marked is another issue, though the community consensus says striped); the question is whether Israel needs to be put in infobox and map legend - for now the consensus is no. B. It was not me who wrote "Israeli Golan Heights" on those maps, so please go and fight your POV wars with the proper person, and better check before you start such. Cheers.GreyShark (dibra) 17:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What color would the white stripe be? Red, green, tan?—SPESH531Other 18:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Spesh531: Your choice of brown stripes seems reasonable to me - it is the color of disputed areas during the war, so it may serve the purpose here to satisfy all those claiming that the map should include the Israeli-controlled/occupied/annexed/ruled/whatever Golan Heights, without going into adding Israel as one of belligerents in the legend.GreyShark (dibra) 12:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was very clear with that you removed it was occupied while keeping "Israeli Golan Heights". I didn't say you added it here, though you have done it on other instances or changed to "annexed". As I said, the Israeli occupation should be reflected as it's relevant and if it should be added to the infobox is another issue, as FunkMonk and others have said from the start. The map also separates it with a dotted line. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the original status quo of the infoboxes said status in the Syrian Civil War. In this war, Israel has little to do with it, and the occupation of the Golan Heights by Israel has nothing to do with the Civil War. If you were to have a specific shade for the Israeli military, you might as well fill in the rest of Israel, and half of West Bank.—SPESH531Other 19:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a map that shows Syria. As Golan Heights is recognized as occupied territory, there is no "rest of Israel" to talk about. It's not meant to specifically show Israeli military but as they occupy one part, they are noted for that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know Golan Heights is occupied. The original purpose of the map(s) were to show the situation in, strictly, the civil war. Israel is not involved in the war, just Syria as a whole (albeit to a minuscule extant). It is not a map that shows Syria, it is a map that shows the Syrian Civil War. Israel is not involved in the civil war. It just so happens that these series of conflicts are grouped together as the "Syrian Civil War" If any of the surrounding countries invaded Syria, and became a combatant of the war, than and only than you label the foreign country. What should be shown in color are the areas involved the civil war, which in this case, is Syria sans Golan Heights. The Golan Heights should not be colored in at all, colored the same as Lebanon, Turkey, and Israel. They do not have a military involvement in the civil war, so they are gray.—SPESH531Other 20:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if Israel is involved or not (it actually is, limited airstrikes on Hezbollah). The map depicts the military situation in Syria, what is the point of not indicating to readers that the Golan Heights is occupied? It adds context, rather than not explaining all of Syria's territories. DylanLacey (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - current status of opinions regarding Supreme Deliciousness wish to change the map box of 4 belligerents (Syrian Gov-t, Syrian opposition, ISIS, Kurds) in order to add Israel on the map of Syrian Civil War as 5th party:

Agree with Supreme - 6 users (Supreme, FundMonk, Dylan, Ibn, Emesik, IRIS)

Oppose to add Israel - 5 users (Grey, Kudzu, FT, Spesh, Legacy)

Neutral/unclear - 2 users

I would like to point out that currently the Golan Heights are colored as disputed (brown), which may solve the issue with no need to add Israel into belligerents list (especially considering the notability or coalition airstrikes' recent role).GreyShark (dibra) 18:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Syria Revolutionaries Front listed separately from the Free Syrian Army in the infobox if it is established the SRF is actually an alliance of 14 FSA brigades? This would actually mean the SRF is a branch of the FSA...possibly its largest, but still part of the FSA. Based on this the SRF should be removed from the infobox since we don't list individual units of the top rebel organisations. EkoGraf (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SRF is not part of FSA. They are separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There should be 5 belligerents: government, FSA, ISIS, Kurds, the US. The US started air strikes on ISIS in Syria.

That is not technically possible, there can only be three. Furthermore, "FSA" is more or less non-existent. US has done less than Israel in this conflict, so if US goes in the box, so does Israel. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The US has involved itself directly in the war. This is blatant declaration of war on the part of the US. The US has to be added as a belligerent somewhere in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Funky. US has so far not involved itself directly in the war. If we consider the criteria for involving yourself in a war than Israel deserves to be put in the infobox more than the US since they have conducted half a dozen airstrikes against the Syrian military, while the US only made one failed hostage rescue attempt months ago (not really a declaration of war). EkoGraf (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no perfect solution, but the infobox is really looking silly at the moment, with Islamic State at the bottom of Syrian Opposition column, and the US-led anti Islamic State coalition at the bottom of the Kurds column. Gazkthul (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it silly? Nothing could make more sense with the limitations we have. The other rebel groups are even defending IS these days, Nusra is being bombed too, so this will only serve to unite them. The only group the US is unambiguously aligned with is the Kurds. What's silly is listing every single member country of this "anti-IS coalition" as belligerents, we should only list those that actually fight.FunkMonk (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a move discussion at Talk:2014_American_rescue_mission_in_Syria#Move_request_-_9_September_2014 to move 2014 American rescue mission in Syria back to original title 2014 American operations in Syria. With surveillance flights ongoing and airstrikes soon to happen there needs to be a place to put this.~Technophant (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been warned at that article's talk page that creating an article on events that have not yet even happened is a violation of WP: Crystal ball and possibly OR and Synthesis. And in the case that they may happen than a NEW article would be created since the rescue operation was a notable enough event to have its own article. EkoGraf (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"US/CIA involvement and operations within Syria"?

Perhaps there could such a section, which - if news comes in of a rescue mission - might be updated?

92.20.243.207 (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a lot of talk lately about a new rebel group fighting in Syria called Khorasan. How come they don't have an article yet? Charles Essie (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, someone already made one. Charles Essie (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not a distinct group, it is just Nusra. http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/148624-doubts-cast-over-u-s-strike-on-khorasan-group FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a new article needs to be formed to cover the airstrikes.Alhanuty (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan are also participating in the airstrikes [9]. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[2014 military intervention against ISIS] covers it well. Legacypac (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess they belong in the same column as the Kurds here. FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-The info box says that the US are only at war with ISIS, but they are also bombing al-Nusra terrorists. Should this be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.87.215.91 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maybe use a wider term, maybe "al Qaeda linked Islamists". FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the Islamic State is not linked to al-Qaeda. DylanLacey (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, yes it is. It was formerly called al Qaeda in Iraq. Only difference is that they do not listen to Zawahiri anymore. FunkMonk (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. It used to be connected to al-Qaeda. All connections have been severed, and there has been considerable fighting between al-Nusra (part of al-Qaeda) and IS. It would be very misleading to say "al Qaeda linked Islamists". DylanLacey (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are still very much in contact. Nusra and IS even conducts joint operations in some areas. Notably in Lebanon, during the battle of Arsal. After US involvement, they are likely to stop infighting completely. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section ‘Free Syrian Army’ in article Syrian Civil War contained lots of information that were not at all presented in what it nevertheless called its ‘main article: Free Syrian Army’. That was technically a very incorrect situation in Wikipedia. I’ve therefore copied those informations to the now truly ‘main article Free Syrian Army’ (in its sections 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8), and in return placed a summary of that now updated ‘main article’ now here in this section SCW#FSA, with special attention to some topics that formerly were treated here at great length: US transfer of $123 million; FSA admitting that ‘the rebels’ were badly fragmented (May 2013); direct talks with the Assad government (August 2013); FSA members running over to Islamic State (August 2014). Of course, you may wish to adapt this here summary further, but please keep it concise, leaving the long stories where they belong, in the genuine ‘main article’. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Section 2.2 (‘Protests and armed insurgency (July–October 2011)’) started with six sentences about FSA (Free Syrian Army), which I’ll indicate here with their number and one of their first significant words (for example: [1,seven], [4,grow]). Sentences [3] and [4] were unsourced. Sentence [5,remained] was off-topic where it spoke of Dec2012(belongs in sect.2.3–2.7). The rest of sentences [5] and [6,insurgent] were off-topic because our section 2 is for the proceedings of the war, not for describing actors like FSA (which belongs in main article ‘Free Syrian Army’). Sentence [2,Composed] was partly unsourced (‘volunteers’), and partly repeating sentence 1: therefore, I’ve integrated its extra information into sentence [1], and removed old sentences [3,4,5 and 6]. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine all IS citizens and FSA citizens have renounced their Syria Arab Republic citizenships, so they are not be considered citizens of Syria. If they fight the Syria government, then it is Syria at war with foreign entities, even if most of the citizens of these foreign entities have been born in Syria and were at one time citizens of the Syria Arab Republic. I would advice changing the name of the article from Syrian Civil War to Syrian War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article names are based on WP:COMMONNAME, as the majority of reliable sources refer to it as a Syrian civil war, that's what the article is called. Gazkthul (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any recent articles still referring to the conflict in Syria as a civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.117.10 (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There haven't been many recent articles that have been referring to the current multinational conflict as anything really. Leave it as it is for the moment.Ericl (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Only IS are likely to have renounced their citizenships, as the Caliphate now has its own passports. The rest still consider themselves as Syrians, except for the foreign fighters, obviously. "Syria" is a much more ancient concept than the current state. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a matter of time when we merge our content into this article. For now leave as it is. --Emesik (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I’ve said and argued before (here,9June2014): the beginning of the lead section talks rubbish, almost constantly. Wikipedia has never orderly decided when ‘Syrian uprising’ turned into ‘Syrian civil war’. Replacing that wrong lead nonsense with reasonable and correct statements doesn’t work out well, because Ljhenshall, here on 10July2014 and other colleagues like FutureTrillionaire (15June2014) and Emesik (30June2014) keep wanting to return to the nonsensical fables and fictions they have grown used to, without ever really motivating or sourcing their fantasy-leadsections. What we do know, by sources, is that ‘uprising’ started March2011, and ‘civil war’ started somewhere before July2012. I know of not one source putting an exact date on the start of civil war, therefore it is wrong if Wiki pins it down on a date, as it does now. Now, of course, anonymus 199etc. is right, that since 2012 the war has expanded into events that strictly are not ‘civil war’—but he gives the wrong reasons: it is because real foreigners (British, Belgians, Dutch, Saudis, etc.) are fighting there in Syria, that it is no longer a pure ‘civil war’. Strictly speaking, we can rename the article into: ‘2011–2014 war in Syria’. Actually, I can’t think of a good reason for NOT changing the name of the article into: ‘2011–2014 war in Syria’. (And, there again, our friend Emesik,26Sept20:50, trying to disturb and frustrate this serious discussion with his World War III nonsense. Strictly speaking, we are entitled to remove such nonsense from a discussion section.) --Corriebertus (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There have been foreign fighters and meddling in every civil war in history, it is no different here. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t see what FunkMonk’s latest remark has to do with the subject here discussed. The question here is not whether some civil war from the past may no longer ne titled ‘civil war’ after we find out one foreigner has been participating: that is to be discussed at the appropriate pages of those civil wars, and foremostly for historians to decide on. The question here is, whether the content of this article, now called ‘SCW’, is (still) correctly indicated as ‘civil war’. Halfway 2012 that may have been rather an appropriate name, anyway it was then customary to entitle the current affairs in Syria as ‘civil war’, by UN and Red Cross and all around. I don’t pretend to be a very expert on this war (I’m not), but half way 2012, militias with many foreigners started to enter Syria and became rather effective in conquering terrain—so says Guardian 12July2013—and I’m more or less under the impression that that tendency grew stronger ever since. Consider for example ISIS (ISIL): they seem to be of momentous importance in this war but also seem predominantly or largely non-Syrian. Both discussants Ericl and anon198etc. observe that of lately the name ‘civil war’ is no longer commonly used for the actual situation in Syria. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And—oops, how could I forget—some tiny, non-Syrian, foreign state power called United States of America (with others) has on 22 September 2014 begun bombarding in Syria, which events are fully covered in this article (‘Syrian Civil War’) (bombarding presumably commonly being considered an ‘act of war’); ehm—does FunkMonk know of civil wars in which foreign powers bombarded? If we want such acts to be presented in this article, which I think is logical and right, it seems to me also right and logical to change the no-longer-appropriate and therefore needlessly misleading title 'civil war' into 'war' (as I suggested here yesterday). --Corriebertus (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, have you heard of, just from the top of my head, the Spanish civil war and the Lebanese civil war, the former in which Germany bombed Spanish targets, and in the latter where the US bombed Lebanese targets, on behalf of belligerents in the civil war? FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad, that FunkMonk doesn’t prove those bombings in Spain and Lebanon, nor the titling (by whom?) of those wars as ‘civil war’. It’s therefore impossible, and anyway no use, discussing here why some historians perhaps decided to call those wars ‘civil wars’, and whether they did rightly so. We see now in Syria a war with great, possibly dominating, foreign opposition against the Syrian Assad government—FunkMonk doesn’t refute that—and with foreign powers like the US fighting against one of those foreign enemies (ISIS)(and therefore logically fighting pro-Assad?). It simply doesn’t look much like civil war, anymore. I wonder what FunkMonk would accept as proof for the fact that this war is no longer solely a civil war. Does FM acknowledge the theoretical possibility of a civil war developing into a wider war? --Corriebertus (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Those bombings are well known. It is not my job to teach you history. But because I'm such a nice guy, here are some hints. Spanish civil war.[10] Lebanese civil war.[11] The German bombing of Guernica is such a famous historical event that I'm simply baffled that you can even attempt to patronise me with these silly remarks. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the logic used by Corriebertus that US bombing ISIS = pro-Assad. The Syria Civil War is not a binary conflict, it is a 4 or 5 sided conflict. This is not (2 player) chess but more like multiplayer Risk where alliances shift but the goal is to control the whole board. Legacypac (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk&Legacypac: this discussion is about how to properly title an article about a war that, to my opinion and the opinion of several other discussants, comprises by now more than what an average citizen would understand as ‘civil war’. It’s irrelevant for that question whether U.S. is fighting pro-Assad (that was just a remark in parentheses, ending in a question mark!), the point is that U.S. is a non-Syrian belligerent (= warring party) in Syria, and ISIS probably for a large or predominant part also. Is it possible that a war that started as ‘civil war’ turns into a ‘war’ in wider sense? I think it is possible, and I think that it seems to have happened in Syria, as I amply argued. Appartently, the Spanish Civil War kept being called ‘civil war’ even though our German befriended Reichskanzler Adolph Hitler meddled in it with bombing Guernica. So what? Does that prove that a civil war can’t evolve into more general ‘war’? --Corriebertus (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the original post contains easily refuted speculation and no proposed solution to what seems like a non-problem. Sure the war has evolved beyond a pure civil war so we already have an article about the 2014 military intervention in Syria. That does not negate the fact there has been and still is a very active civil war underway in Syria. Legacypac (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Legacypac and I agree that the war in Syria (begun somewhere 2011–2012), which Wikipedia in 2012 called ‘civil war’ (probably simply because it looked like a ‘civil war’ to us and to authoritative observers) has by now evolved beyond a pure civil war. Does he then also agree that titling it as ‘war’ would be more appropriate than ‘civil war’?
2. It is not certain whether we reach that shared conclusion by the same argument(s), because Legacypac does as yet not reveal his arguments to us; but perhaps the arguments for reaching that shared conclusion are less important.
3. The beginner of this discussion, mr. 199etc., reaches also the conclusion that the war covered here is no (longer a pure) civil war, but his arguments are not yet shared by anyone. Nevertheless: the three of us agree that the war depicted here is no (longer a) (pure) civil war.
4. Mr 199 and I consider the present Wiki-situation (title doesn’t fit the article) a ‘problem’: we therefore started this discussion, and prefer and propose a title like “war (in Syria…)” because we consider that more fitting and right than “civil war”. Does Legacypac agree to such better-fitting title?
5. Legacypac however is vague: the not optimally fitting title of the article “seems like a non-problem”, he says. Sorry: something is by definition a ‘problem’ as soon as anyone poses it as a ‘problem’ on these pages. You may react on the ‘problem’, the opinions, proposals, etc., but you can’t turn the stated problem into non-existence. If you don’t react to the issue raised in a section, then your posted contribution in the section is off-topic. I assume that his vagueness means—he may correct me if I interpret his vagueness wrongly: ‘I [= Legacypac] agree that ‘war’ is a better fitting and more appropriate title to this article than ‘civil war’; I however oppose the idea of re-titling it into something more fitting and appropriate like ‘war (in Syria)’.’ This would seem to me like deliberately wanting Wikipedia to be less correct and clear than it can be: deliberately harming Wikipedia. Opinions proposing to deliberately harm Wikipedia we are entitled to ignore here, I suppose.
6. I can perhaps ease Legacypac’s mind by saying that retitling the article does not at all mean that we from then on deny that also a civil war is still taking place in Syria (as part of that wider ‘war’, depicted in that retitled article). --Corriebertus (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict in Syria is a Civil War - as it fits the definition and all reliable sources term it as such. It is also a Proxy_war while remaining a civil war. Now we have some outside parties intervening against specific parties to the Civil War, but that does not make it a regular war between countries. Which country is fighting which country in this conflict? The US and allies are not trying to seize territory or occupy Syria, only trying to destroy ISIL, which is not a country. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be consensus (anonym.199etc., Corriebertus, Legacypac) that the Syrian ‘civil war’ has evolved in a ‘war’ that exceeds ‘civil war’, because non-Syrian parties (ISIL, Bahrain, U.S., etc.) are now participating in this war which obviously no longer fits within the definition of ‘civil war’. Everyone will easily see and understand and accept that, also after looking up ‘civil war’ in dictionary or even in Wikipedia. (‘Proxy war’: nobody knows really what that is—is it a category of war? Or an adjective, like ‘long war’, ‘great war’, ‘Asian war’, ‘cruel war’? Wiki has a (fantasy-)article on ‘proxy war’ that cites no sources and can’t be taken serious.) In that case, a more correct title would be: “Syrian (Civil) War”. This is an amendment of my former contributions in this discussion, and it seems likely that it is in the spirit also of mr. 199etc. Mr. Legacypac is, I’m sorry to say this, starting to talk what looks to me as nonsense, today: he knows very well, and has said so earlier, that this war no longer fits ‘civil war’. Probably because he feels uncomfortable with the logical consequence (renaming the article into ‘war’, or ‘(civil) war’), he probably now starts denying his own words, without any convincing argument. (Which is again also very understandable, see Matthew 26 verse 70.) Legacypac is probably terribly unhappy someone brought this issue up, therefore on 29 Sept already suggested that the problem doesn’t exist—which by the way is an insult to the colleagues who brought this issue (= ‘problem’) up. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, Legacypac is in favour of the current title. Again, external meddling is common in all civil wars, so is not an argument. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be very clear. Corriebertus characterisation of my position is utter nonsense. There is no valid reason to change the title of this article away from Syrian Civil War since there has been and is a Syrian Civil War. We have other articles for related conflicts that fall outside the Syrian Civil War, including but not limited to interventions against ISIL, border clashes/spillovers, Iraqi insurgency etc. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if something is wrong with the proxy war article, go fix it. One editor's ignorance of the dictionary term proxy war does not equal "nobody knows really what that is" Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with both Legacypac and FunkMonk. EkoGraf (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Legacypac on the title remaining Syrian Civil War Gazkthul (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that the tile should remain the same - Syrian Civil War. As has been discussed, many civil wars throughout history have involved outside forces. Foreign involvement is usually in support of one side or the other, and not to "invade" the country and take over in their own right. A civil war by definition is two (or more) factions fighting for control of the central government and territory. Just because another nation wants to help a particular faction win doesn't make it any less a civil war. The Syrian Civil War, ISIS, Arab Spring, revolutions in Egypt and Libya etc. could all be said to be interconnected in a way, but they are still separate events with their own indigenous roots, specific causes, and players that may or may not have any direct connection to any others. Point being, it's still a civil war. Coinmanj (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a glaring omission in the main belligerents section down the page. Nusra, FSA, ISIS etc are all mentioned but there is no paragraph description for the Islamic front even though they are one of the most important belligerents in the conflict. This need to be added. As well as this there should be some description of the coalitions(both current and former) among the various rebel groups. For example Syrian National Coalition, Ahl Al-Sham, Syrian Islamic Front and Syrian Islamic Liberation Front. Stumink (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes mr/mrs Stumink. Go ahead, make those sections. Don't first ask our permission, just do it. --Corriebertus (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War article has more detailed info.David O. Johnson (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this has been discussed before, but I don't think the current infobox represents the reality of the situation in Syria at all. My analysis is based on the following evidence:

• In a recent VICE News documentary (see 7:22 of this video), an Islamic Front commander said: "The strength of the FSA, that has been fighting the regime, was weakened, because the Islamic State is much stronger than the regime. They have weapons and ammunition. So they have exhausted us more, and many more of us have been martyred by IS than by the regime" (my emphasis).
• Based on this, it is probably unfair and misleading to put the Islamic Front, the SRF, Nusra and the other mainstream rebels in the same column as IS. They're openly at war with IS.
• Also, according to recent estimates, IS controls 1/3 of Syria, so they probably "deserve" a column to themselves if we base it on percentage of territory controlled.

Since there are only 3 columns, that begs the question: what about the Kurds? I don't think there is an open mainstream rebel vs Kurd war going on right now. There probably are hostilities, as there have been since the beginning, but right now it isn't war. So it would be best to put the Kurds in the same column as the rebels, with a line separating the two, and note that there have been hostilities.

The three columns should be: regime, mainstream rebels and Kurds, and IS. I think the "intervention" should be listed underneath the Kurds in the rebel/Kurd section. So that column, probably the middle one, would go: rebels, then underneath them Kurds, and underneath them the Western "intervention." The last section should note that the airstrikes have hit Nusra as well as IS. (The rumors about Ahrar al-Sham being hit are false.

Here is a link to the infobox in case anyone wants to go ahead and edit. I'd like to discuss first though. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with your assessment, the Islamic State is a unique entity that has to be put in its own column. Furthermore, all mainstream opposition factions (including even the al-Nursa Front) have treaties with Kurdish militants, and have had for months now. Nulla Taciti (talk) 02:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although there's some question as to where to put Nusra. I would put them together with the Islamic State, but separated by a solid line for now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Things have changed after, and even before, American involvement. It appears the anti government groups are less likely to attack each other from now on, and there hasn't been much action between them the last month. FunkMonk (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To FunkMonk: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It's not our job to speculate on what's going to happen; we should simply try to reflect what the current situation is like. Nevertheless, your speculation is incorrect.

Suqour al-Sham (members of Islamic Front based in Idlib) released a statement in which they said (my translation and emphasis): "These unjust airstrikes will be a tool for fueling extremism and terrorism, which was carried out by the Assad regime and completed by ISIS... We stress that our fight against ISIS will not depend on cooperation or coordination from anyone." So if we're going to speculate, it seems unlikely that they will stop fighting against ISIS because of American involvement.

Nulla Taciti, yes you're right it seems like rebels and Kurds are cooperating. That's what the media has been reporting, at least.

Jushyosaha604 (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the situation on the ground is that the Sunni rebels have almost ceased fighting each other. See this article: http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/syrias-nusra-front-pressured-join-isis-after-us-led-airstrikes FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that Nusra = "the Sunni rebels" is inaccurate. According to this very article, the FSA (I assume that includes the SRF) has at least 40,000 fighters, the Islamic Front 40,000, "Ahfad al-Rasul" 7000, "Asala wal-Tanmiyah" 13,000, and Army of Mujahideen 5000. Nusra has 5000 men (and women) - they're a small but effective group that gets over-hyped. Percentage-wise, they're only 4.5% of the Sunni rebels. So them being "pressured" to join ISIS does NOT mean "the Sunni rebels have almost ceased fighting each other." Suqour al-Sham, which is twice the size of Nusra, clearly indicated they intend to continue to fight against ISIS. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 19:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, this has been discussed to death before and, even though consensus can change, bringing it up less than a month after the previous discussion ended can be considered disruptive. Second, I am tending to agree with FunkMonk on this issue plus there is no crystal balling here, and the current multinational involvement in Syria is very likely a pretext to attack Assad as well. Also, arbitrarily deciding to put the Kurds on the opposition's column is extremely erroneous. The number of Kurds killed by regime forces is negligible, and if they are currently in a pact with some rebel groups to fight ISIS, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily an "alliance" and that it will last. Placing the Kurds with Turkey in the same column is also just wrong [12], and there are much more jihadist groups in the opposition than Al-Nusra, so having the Kurdish-allied Syriacs with them in the same column is even more misleading. The Kurds should be in the regime's column if anything as neither of them has ever declared war on the other since the conflict began. As FunkMonk said in the last discussion, what needs to be done here is to look at the precedents and use them as a bright line demarcation between the opposing factions when a conflict's future developments is as unclear as this one's. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzcarmalan your reasoning for reverting to a flawed older version is idiosyncratic and faulty. The main concern here is you have clearly ignored recent references that were added (Syrian rebel groups unite to fight ISIS), which disprove your dated assumptions regarding the Syriac Military Council which is now allied with the FSA. And statements like "putting Kurds in the same colomn as Turkey is just plain wrong" is an emotive and bizarre statement, as is your suggestion as to where to place the Kurds which have declared autonomy in three cantons so obviously they aren't allied to the Assad regime. This older version of the template is a confused mess that is simply not backed by recent sources/references or the current state of affairs. Nulla Taciti (talk) 23:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it strange that people who want to put ISIS in the same column as the rebels keep citing pro-Assad and pro-Hezbollah sources such as Al-Akhbar and Al Monitor. These groups have a clear interest in painting any pro-revolution faction with the same brush as ISIS. As far as the disruptive allegation is concerned - a lot has happened in the last month, so I don't think it's disruptive to discuss this again.

It might be slightly misleading to have the Kurds in the same column as Turkey. However, putting the rebels in the same column as ISIS is much more misleading, because those two are at war with each other (there's a difference between hostilities and war). Some estimates of the death toll from that war are upwards of 10,000. So it's one of those things where you have to go for the least bad option.Jushyosaha604 (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would just ignore the "disruptive" remark... that's a rather desperate appeal at this point. Along with the US/coalition airstrikes, there have been several new agreements between Opposition/Kurdish/Syriac factions, such as Euphrates Volcano and the aforementioned Supreme Military Council/Syriac Military Council agreement (which also included Kurds); "More than 20 Syrian rebel commanders, including members of Christian opposition groups, have signed off on what they called a historic agreement to unite in the fight against ISIS and President Bashar al-Assad's forces." (Syrian rebel groups unite to fight ISIS). Nulla Taciti (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like based on recent developments we should move Syrian Opposition into the Kurd/US Coalition column, with a block line between them, so 3 groups who are distinct, but not fighting each other now. So the three sides are 1) Pro-Assad 2) ISIS 3) Syrian Opposition/US led/Kurds and allies. Any objections? Legacypac (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a clear consensus for what you are proposing Legacypac. From what I can make out, only Fitzcarmalan has any real objections. There are 4 editors who wish to move forward with the more up to date and relevant version of the infobox. Nulla Taciti (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read a report that there were clashes today in the Aleppo province town of "Soran E'zaz." On one side was al-Nusra, Jabhat al-Akrad (Kurds), and "rebel and Islamic battalions" (presumably IF, FSA, SRF, etc). On the other side was ISIS. So based on that, as well as the consensus here, I decided to go ahead and make the edit.

It should also be noted that many of the strength and casualty numbers need updating. It's getting kinda late today; I'll work on it tomorrow :) I guess. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 02:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Issue closed. I tweaked the note to say ISIS fighting all other parties instead of "regime and opposition" Legacypac (talk) 02:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Some scattered alliances with Kurds and isolated FSA groups does certainly not warrant moving the PYD into the same column as the Syrian opposition. FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's been vastly more fighting between the FSA and IS than the FSA and YPG. Thus it makes more sense to have the Kurds and FSA in the same column. DylanLacey (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that the infobox looked a bit misleading with IS in the opposition's column and the intervention forces in the Kurds' because I've never heard of any open support from the listed countries to Syria's Kurdish fighters before. But having the Kurds (who are allied with the PKK) on the rebels' side (which includes Turkey, plus there have been more clashes between the Kurds and the opposition than between the Kurds and Assad) is, as I've said before, even more misleading and there's nothing "emotive" about this. Turkish forces have clashed with the Kurds just a few days ago. Ignoring all the discussions about the Kurds that took place over the past years is highly disrespectful to all of those who wasted much of their energy on this issue. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

with only three columns we have to use the most logical arrangement. groups that are not directly aligned are separated by lines. What alternative are you suggesting?Legacypac (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kurds belong to the regime's column for now until we get a consensus. Last time they clashed with government forces was in 2012 and the casualties from this conflict was negligible compared to clashes with the rebels. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzcarmalan, you are using non sequitur arguments to justify you ignoring overwhelming consensus. Also prior discussions are meaningless; the dynamics and alligences in Syria have changed in the past week, as the references provided show. This isn't up for debate, these are facts on the ground. Nulla Taciti (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fitzcarmalan actually changed the infobox twice against consensus above. Needs to be reverted (done twice, diff editors). If the kurds (who declared their own autonomous region/almost a state) are not fighting Assad it is because they don't have much of a common front. Legacypac (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fitz: by what standard are you saying YPG in the same column as Turkey is more misleading than rebels in same column as ISIS? I don't understand your reasoning behind that. There are hostilities between Turkey and the Kurds, yes, but for the third time: we have to differentiate between hostilities and war.

Also, your argument about lack of hostilities between Kurds and regime would suggest we ought to put the Kurds in the regime column and put the intervention on their side. There has been a lot of talk of how Assad is the biggest beneficiary from the intervention. However, the Kurds clearly have separate interests from the regime and do seem to be cooperating with the FSA against ISIS right now. So the regime vs rebels/Kurds vs ISIS makes the most sense (though I acknowledge it's not perfect. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 18:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey are listed in "armament support"—for the Syrian Opposition. No one would ever confuse that for armament support of the YPG et al. This is just a red herring. Also (and this is beside the point)... what military confrontation with any Kurdish faction, even the PKK, has there been lately? He has provided no references for these events that I haven't heard of. The Kurds and Syriacs have signed agreements with the Syrian Opposition, and have commited to oppose the Assad regime, end of story. Nulla Taciti (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a bit concerned here. This talk page has been silent for the past many months, and suddenly three different users, two with minimal edit history and created months within each other, turn up at the same time, practically agreeing with each other. I smell sock puppetry. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry? Really? Don't be quick to assume someone is a sock puppet. Also: no offense, but you need to stop making false accusations. I don't want to make this personal; let's discuss the issue instead of attacking each other. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wasn't "quick", my reasoning is the standard way to detect sock puppets, prior to checkuser. If there's nothing to hide, there should be little reason to feel slighted, no? FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jushyosaha604, don't even acknowledge him. It wasn't just 3 editors supporting this change, it was 7-8, many of them well established. There is a term for what FunkMonk is doing right now, but I will decline to state it. It is bad faith behavior to say the least. Nulla Taciti (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another good indication of sockpuppetry is when accounts turn up minutes within each other to agree with/defend each others points. Especially after being absent for the exact same amount of time. Just saying, maybe you should wait a little next time. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right FunkMonk, everything is a conspiracy theory. Excuse me while I go back to my Illuminati plot to institute a single world currency. Nulla Taciti (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what are you all talking about, though you are the ones apparently ignoring my arguments. But if y'all think you can simply pop out of nowhere at the same time to disrupt years of heavy discussion about this by bullying and threatening me on my talk page, claiming you have a an "overwhelming consensus" (which I hardly see), then you are clearly in the wrong place. And I also smell something quacky here. You want facts? There you go:

1. Kurds stopped clashing with government forces since Assad handed over[13] some territory to them in July 2012. So arguing that the Kurds' self-declaration of independence justifies having them on the opposition's side is becoming increasingly weak.

2. Kurds continued to clash with various opposition groups (most notably al-Nusra and Ghuraba al-Sham) ever since.

3. Death toll from the Kurdish–regime clashes is extremely minor compared to that with the rebels (excluding those with the IS).

4. Sources about/from the PYD and statements by its leader Salih Muslim Muhammad:

→ Syrian Kurds may have added appeal for the back channels they provide. Despite claiming to be opposed to Mr Assad’s regime, there are reports that they may be co-ordinating with his forces in the fight against Isis. Both Kurdish and Arab activists say the current battle to recapture the strategic town of Tel Hamees in eastern Syria has seen Kurdish forces advance under the cover of air and artillery strikes launched by Assad forces. - Financial Times (September 17, 2014).

→ "Assad can deploy and spread his troops in Syrian Kurdistan but only if he accepts Kurdish rights," added (Salih) Muslim. - BasNews (April 4, 2014). → Erbil-based news agency

→ "Overthrowing Assad’s regime is not exactly a priority of the YPG," said Aymenn al-Tamimi, an expert on Syrian and Iraqi militants from the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum. In fact, while Kurdish forces have clashed with Syrian government troops on occasion, they have also quietly co-existed in some areas. "In the end the Kurds want to maintain control over their areas and keep out intruders." - The Washington Post (September 19, 2014).

→ Asked if they were cooperating with the Assad regime, (Salih) Muslim replied: "No, never. Whoever says this is disrespecting our martyr brothers. We have been fighting with the regime since the 2004 Kurdish uprising. We have nothing in common with them. They don’t recognize Kurdish identity. But others are worse than the regime." - Al-Monitor (October 29, 2013).

→ Syrian Kurds do not support either the government or the rebels, but only want to protect themselves from massacres and ethnic cleansing by Islamist rebel groups, who ignore all democratic principles, says Syrian Kurdish leader Saleh Muslim. (...) "We live on Syrian territory and we are part of the Syrian people. Regardless of what some people say, we’re not looking to break away from Syria. We are a part of this country, and we are one of the stakeholders in the Syrian crisis settlement process," said Muslim. (+ more statements by Salih Muslim following the Ghouta chemical attack) - RT (August 28, 2013).

5. PYD is the PKK's Syrian offshoot,[14] thus it cannot be in the same column with Turkey [15] and it certainly should not be in the same column with the Islamist (and non-Islamist) rebel groups it had clashed with severely over the past four years.

6. Currently, the Kurds are not "allies" with the rebels. They just see a common enemy in ISIS and this can apply to the Kurds and Assad as well. That's not really a strange or unique phenomenon throughout the history of modern warfare.

I will not edit war this out and I've always tried to stay away from this particular topic as much as I could, but this kind of behavior (playing nice, while at the same time gaming the system) should not be tolerated. And stop saying "issue closed" or "end of story" because there is no overwhelming consensus here and this is not your living room. Someone should come here as soon as possible and revert this charade because things have gone way too far. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 04:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All there is to say is:

• Read this CNN article: Syrian rebel groups unite to fight ISIS
• Read this wikipedia article: Euphrates Volcano.

Why you continue to willfully ignore these references and refuse to pay attention to recent developments is flabbergasting. Nulla Taciti (talk) 11:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, these references that you have provided all state that the Kurdish factions oppose the Assad regime and are allied with the Syrian opposition? Sorry but you clearly have a serious case of confirmation bias Fitzcarmalan. Nulla Taciti (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to state the following. The Kurds have no place in the column with the opposition because they got their own agenda separate from the rebels. Besides, if we follow the logic on which you moved the Kurds into the opposition column (YPG-FSA alliances against ISIS) than under that same logic the YPG should go into the Assad column as well since there exists an YPG-SAA/NDF alliance against ISIS in Hasakah. Simply ignoring the existing Assad/YPG alliance in Hasakah and pushing for the YPG/opposition alliance in Aleppo is non-neutral. As for ISIS, whether they are in a conflict with everyone is irrelevant because they are considered by everybody to be an anti-Assad group and their conflict with the opposition is still called an inter-rebel conflict. Thus, whether people like it or not, they ARE a rebel group. And that's why we got the separation lines between ISIS and everyone else. And I will remind once again that ISIS was a full-fledged ally of the opposition for a full year before their conflict erupted. EkoGraf (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just made a series of edits to put the Kurds in both the government and opposition columns, as their only constant enemy in this conflict has been the Islamic State (which I don't think was ever an "ally" of the opposition; it was always a rival group, even if full-fledged fighting between the factions didn't break out until about a year ago: [16] [17] [18]). If someone doesn't like it, they can certainly go ahead and revert and come back here to explain why, but I think it's a better way of representing the sides in this war than has been done in the past. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like what you tried Kudzu but now there is no separation line between the Kurds and ISIS. Now it looks like the Kurds are allied with everybody. EkoGraf (talk) 18:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Indeed. Let me see what I can do. Some of this infobox coding is pretty arcane. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please try. The commanders/strength/casualties also need to be moved. Otherwise it will need to go back to Assad/Opposition (with ISIS)/Kurds. Because the Kurds simply can not stay in the opposition column. They are allies yes with them in Aleppo, but are allies with Assad in Hasakah. EkoGraf (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I managed to fix it. Helpfully, the Islamic State has changed its name no less than three times over the course of the conflict. I also added the Islamic State of Iraq as a past ally of the opposition and clarified in the infobox that the three-way conflict didn't really start until 2013. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you can provide a reference where the Kurdish self government has signed an official treaty with the Assad regime, then stating they are allied to them is non-neutral/POV. The fact of the matter is the Kurdish and Syriac faction have signed such treaties with a range of opposition factions. While there is actually evidence for a de facto temporary truce with whatever Assad regime remnants exist within Syrian Kurdistan (the issue is well detailed in this Crisis Group report: Flight of Icarus? The PYD’s Precarious Rise in Syria), there is nothing substantive or official to base this upon, thus making it an opinion. Nulla Taciti (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also these latest edits make the infobox look througly broken. Yes they are clearly good faith, but this is basically the "4th column" issue reinvented. Nulla Taciti (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An official treaty is not the standard for co-belligerence. The infobox doesn't indicate formal alliance, it indicates co-belligerence (hence the line separators) against ISIL. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like Kudzu says. Infobox indicates co-belligerence. As for the sources on SAA/NDF cooperation against ISIS in Hasakah here [19]. Its not really simply a truce if they are conducting joint combat operations against ISIS. Also, the main opening argument above about putting the Kurds in the same column as the rebels was that there was no open hostilities between them and the rebels at the moment. Well, seems you forgot about not being any open hostilities between them and Assad forces ether at the moment. So please stop with the POV-pushing in regards to the Kurds. They get their own column or they need to be indicated to be aligned with both the opposition and Assad. The Kurds are nether pro- or anti-Assad or even pro- or anti-opposition. After reviewing the new layout presented by Kudzu I will drop the issue if his model of the infobox stays because I support it totally. EkoGraf (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf there is no need to resort to WP:PA with false allegations of "POV pushing". And the reference you provided is from August, making it outdated. Finally, the remark about Kurds being "nether pro- or anti-Assad or even pro- or anti-opposition" is patiently ridiculous, amounting to a denial of reality. From a reference helpfully provided above:

→ Asked if they were cooperating with the Assad regime, (Salih) Muslim replied: "No, never. Whoever says this is disrespecting our martyr brothers. We have been fighting with the regime since the 2004 Kurdish uprising. We have nothing in common with them. They don’t recognize Kurdish identity." - Al-Monitor (October 29, 2013). Nulla Taciti (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the reference you provided, did you even read it? You are as bad as Fitzcarmalan when it comes to providing references that add nothing new and in fact state the opposite of what is claimed. The YPG spokesperson states that the YPG will "collaborate with anyone to expel extremists [ISIS]", before launching into a lenghy defense regarding how there was no further collaboration with the regime: “There was a partial withdrawal by the regime forces, but the areas where we are in power now they’ve been control after bloodshed. Thus, any claims that the Syrian regime has handed over areas to the YPG forces is untrue,” YPG’s spokesman said." This bloodshed he is alluding to is from the YPG presumably fighting the regime at some point. Nulla Taciti (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not conducting a personal attack against you, unlike your remarks that I am denying reality and as bad as Fitz (sensing hostility). But back to the main discussion. You are saying my reference can not be taken into account because its from August 2014, while you yourself in the next sentence quoted a source (in an attempt to make your case) which is from October 2013. So which of the two is more outdated (2 months or a year)? And you seemed to have totally blocked out (not acknowledging) the part where the YPG spokesman said that the cooperation of their forces (YPG) with the pro-Assad military forces “is quite logical under the current conditions” and that the YPG and Assad forces jointly attacked the ISIS-held part of Hasakah city. If you want an even newer source (from 2 weeks ago) google search for GHWEIRAN RESIDENTS PROTEST REGIME TAKEOVER AMIDST LOOTING FEARS. Its a highly pro-opposition source which is reporting on protests against the joint Kurdish/Assad takeover of the formerly ISIS-held district. So you may not like it, but Assad troops and the YPG ARE working together in Hasakah against ISIS. In any case, good work Kudzu, the new layout of the infobox is really good and fairly balanced. P.S. Your allegation that the YPG spokesman is saying there was no further collaboration with the regime is incorrect, he made no such statement. EkoGraf (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The collaboration is limited and in the next breath the spokesperson is distancing the PYD from the regime. And the year old reference is significant for what it does say (PYD is not regime allied) and what it doesn't say (anything critical of the mainstream opposition). But clearly all you wish to do is argue and either not read/misrepresent sources and continue with WP:PA; remarks like "you may not like it" have nothing to do with anything or sources/references. Your conduct EkoGraf is disappointing and not condusive to dialogue. Nulla Taciti (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, the Kurds and the government are not allies. But the Kurds and the rebels are not allied either. And the Kurds have been cooperating with the government and with the rebels alike where it helps them fight off the Islamic State. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox left looking like crude ASCII art seems like the worst of all worlds, but leave it to consensus. Nulla Taciti (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Nulla, you obviously have a predetermined opinion on this issue which nobody or any sources can change. Kudz1 now said what I'm thinking the most plainly in two simple sentences. Kurds do not support ether Assad or the rebels, but they aligned themselves with both in two different parts of Syria to combat ISIS. The end.

WP:PA yet again. Discuss the subject and not the editors. I haven't once accused you of having a specific view, so why must you insist on behaving this way? I'm going by the sources and they state that the Kurds are allied with the Syrian opposition. Nulla Taciti (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going by the sources and they state that the Kurds are allied with the Syrian opposition. And the sources (one from just 2 weeks ago) that clearly state the YPG is fighting alongside the SAA/NDF in Hasakah are not to be taken into consideration? In any case, most editors here agree the Kurds are separate from everyone (fourth side) or at the very least aligned with both the Assads and the opposition, depending on the circumstances and location, against ISIS. Allied with just the opposition? No. EkoGraf (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we have 4 boxes.Alhanuty (talk) 01:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, that is not technically possible. Why doesn't someone suggest to some Wikimedia programmer that a fourth column should be implementable? Nothing regular editors can do about that. FunkMonk (talk) 01:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the best, if one of their programmers decided to help. EkoGraf (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to propose it at some technical community portal[20][21], then there probably has to be long discussion about it. Those who complain about it all the time should take that responsibility. I'm personally fine with three columns, so won't be me. But I am getting tired of this being endlessly proposed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Kudzu made a proposal, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28proposals%29#Conflict_infobox_-_4_sides_needed FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a fourth column might be the solution. Hopefully it won't look too crammed... But that's just the nature of this conflict. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the best solution is to list the belligerents alphabetically in the first column? The secound column can then be used for the commander and the third can be used for the groups strength. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how the infobox works. FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but it may be easy to change the infobox to allow it, and it would have solved the limited space problem. Erlbaeko (talk) 10:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Four rows look fine. I think the "coalition" still belongs with the Kurds though, which are their only unambiguous ally. Nusra Front targets have been hit as well, and I doubt most of the other Islamist groups are aligned with the coalition. FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That seems to make sense. The PKK is designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, but there have been no reports of airstrikes against the PKK, and the YPG says it is coordinating with the U.S.-led coalition: [22] [23] [24]

The question mark for me, though, is Turkey. It may end up not intervening in Syria at all, but it is clearly trying to play some hardball by withholding support from Kobane's defenders. If it joins the coalition, will it really be on the same side as the YPG and PKK? -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Turkey is quite insignificant in the coalition, unlike for example the US. And the US is clearly not aligned with Nusra, so it is pretty clear. So at least it makes more sense than what we have here. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On balance, I agree. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the US+allies need to be below the Kurds. We already list the US+Qatar etc as supplying support to the Opposition, so putting the US+allies with the Kurds would better demonstrate that they support both groups (of course they are not 100% supportive of either group, hence the horizontal line.) As for Turkey, there is definitely some politics being played. I read one suggestion that Turkey is demanding the dismantling of the Syrian Kurdistan Govt first??? However, if/when Turkey "does everything it can to stop ISIL" as their Pres said, they have to work with the Kurds even if the have reservations. Simple geography says Turkish tanks and troops would start in Kurdistan, and they would be shooting ISIL and al-Qaeda, not the Kurds.Legacypac (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just edited to present the coalition forces in a shared column under both the opposition and Kurds while adding the note that they are supporting the FSA and YPG, because obviously they're not supporting al Qaeda or the PKK. If anyone objects, I have no problem with that change being undone and am not strongly opposed to just listing the coalition under the YPG, although I would note that the U.S. government has emphasized that it is also acting in support of the FSA and so-called "moderate" rebel groups. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the FSA should be moved then. They have clashed with Islamic Front, Nusra and other Sunni groups, but not with Kurds as far as I recall. FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thought. Then again, the FSA still has significant collaboration with other opposition groups, whereas its relationship with the YPG has been operationally limited. Do you have WP:RS to support your suggestion? -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What part of my outline do you contest? FSA has clashed with Nusra long before ISIS, it was pretty well reported. FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That the FSA and Kurds are more closely aligned than the FSA and other (non-ISIL) opposition groups. It could be that is the case, but I haven't personally seen sources supporting it and was wondering if you have. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for a start, this is from a month ago.[25] And look at the section above this one. Also, the FSA used the whole "Nusra is controlled by the regime" conspiracy theory back when they fought. How times have changed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kurds have taken a defensive position, fighting anyone that tries to control their "homeland" including the regime. FSA and other Opposition is of course not that united making it hard to align them, but at the moment FSA and the Kurds are involved in the Siege of Kobane. Legacypac (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the coalition air forces would rather need to be in the Kurdish column rather than the opposition column. Especially since there is some evidence the Kurds are coordinating with them, while the rebels have even complained of no coordination between them and the coalition. Also, most of the recent strikes were in support of the Kurds at Kobane. EkoGraf (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, haven't heard of any single action by the coalition which was specifically done in favour of the FSA. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should have the Intervention span over the Opposition and Kurds column, just like we had to do before there were four columns. [Soffredo] 22:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Soffredo: Note that that changed in Special:Diff/628695651. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So will anyone move the coalition to the Kurd column? I haven't touched the infobox for a long time, so I probably can't do it properly. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Erlbaeko (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Erlbaeko: Your edit actually made the intervention appear under just the Kurds, which was incorrect and reverted by another editor. I've now made it properly appear under both opposition and Kurds. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which defeats the purpose of having four columns and thus simplifying the infobox. The intervention should appear under the opposition column, as that is who the coalition is aligned with in Syria (whereas in Iraq the coalition is aligned with the Kurds + government). DylanLacey (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "coalition" has not acted in tandem with the "opposition" at all, only with Kurds in Kobani. So their only unambiguous ally is the Kurds. FunkMonk (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. So far the intervention has been against IS and a unit of the oppositions al-Nusra Front called the Khorasan group. Only Kurdish forces have been directly supported, so I believe the intervention should be in the Kurdistan column only. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good to add a map to infobox, same as it is in Iraq Insurgency article (maybe even add it to the article itself, create "Map" section. The link is not enough. Also, why there are two map templates? Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map? Somebody should do something about it. --Novis-M (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't two templates. An article and a template are totally different. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, found that out already - they both use the same module. But still, it would be good to add that to the article or infobox. --Novis-M (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There are neutrality issues with that map. Zenithfel (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better something than nothing. At least we could make simplified version of it. Just like it is in Iraq insurgency infobox. So the folks can see which areas are roughly controlled by who and where the major fighting takes place. --Novis-M (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The picture on top of the article shows 'current military situation'. The terms 'Government' and 'Islamic State' are clear. However, after closely following this war for more than a year, I've never heard of the term 'Rojava'--and also they're not mentioned in section 4 'Belligerents' in our article !!, which makes it totally unacceptable to use that term in this essential graphic. Please bear in mind we make Wikipedia mostly for not-experts, for ordinary citizens like your aunt or your hairdresser. I'm sure some of you experts know what a Rojava is or can be, but I want to see more commonly used indications, indications used in our section 4 'Belligerents', in this graphic. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving the previous discussion where it was agreed that this was biased and needed removing: "Inspections and probes in Syria by the UN and Amnesty International determined in 2012, 2013, and 2014 that the vast majority of abuses, as well as the largest in scale, were being committed by the Syrian government." This is very strong anti-Assad language to have in the beginning paragraphs of the article. I think the previous sentence is plenty to sum up the UN's position "A United Nations panel investigating human rights abuses in Syria has asked the United Nations Security Council and influential states to refer Syria to the International Criminal Court.". DylanLacey (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A - Its reliably sourced.

B - Its what the reliable sources say.

C - It is widely reported

D - Not including it is Undue weight. 209.243.45.172 (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

E - It is way outdated, so no, it is useless when the conflict has changed so dramatically since then. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. There is a source for 2014. 209.243.45.172 (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what does it say exactly that aligns with our text? FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"the UN and Amnesty International have found that the vast majority of abuses were carried out by the Syrian government" [26] - You couldn't wish for better wording that matches the context of the article. 209.243.45.172 (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also here is an article from just last month [27](<second paragraph) 209.243.45.172 (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another article from just last month [28] "The Syrian government remains responsible for the majority of the civilian casualties, killing and maiming scores of civilians daily" 209.243.45.172 (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russian special forces are operating inside Syria and there have been multiple sources about that with the latest one about a Russian ELNIT(electronic warfare) unit operating in Syria.In the Info box it should state that The Syrian government is supported by Russia not only armed.

[29] [30] [31]

Daki122 (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]