Talk:Russian-led intervention in Syria

Merge Discussion
Who is leading this intervention now? Russians have more planes. Guru Noel (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would argue that they are separate interventions; thus, the two pages don't need to be merged.David O. Johnson (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

How long has usa been in middle east,over ten years? Russia on Wednesday (30 sep 2015) launched its first air strikes in Syria, after President Vladimir Putin won parliamentary approval to use force abroad.So merging the two would be propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.190.202.103 (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not even clear what the Russians are doing in Syria but for sure the American-led Intervention is not now Russian-led. Speedy close this? Legacypac (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk from previous article
Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War → Russian intervention in Syria – Russia made its intervention in Syria, but not in the civil war. 178.95.188.170 (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I would agree, however, there are other pages that conform to 'intervention in the Syrian Civil War' so for the sake of consistency I vote in favour of retaining the current name. Hollth (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Jordanian intervention in the Syrian Civil War also nominated. No other articles with "intervention" in this topic. 178.95.188.170 (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - "intervention is Syria" is much less focused on the topic of the article; also one can ask what is exactly Syria now? If it means Syria (region) then no problem, but many refer so to the Syrian Arab Republic, which is a failed state, currently controlling only 30% of Syria (region). Some recognize Syrian Opposition as genuine Syria - the Arab League for instance. Finally, Syrian Civil War is interlinked with conflicts in Iraq and Lebanon; intervention is Syria unnecessarily limits the article's scope (Russia is clearly aiming to fight all Salafist and Islamist factions in the region, which are also present in Iraq, Lebanon, etc.).GreyShark (dibra) 10:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But related article named "...in Syria": 2015 Russian air raids in Syria, in Syria, not in the Syrian Ciwil War. 178.95.188.170 (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The name should stay as it is; "...Syrian Civil War" rather then "...in Syria"; also, Syrian Arab Republic while controlling 30% of territory, most of it is residential as the western part of the country is more settled. The current government is legitimate and as long as Assad's government is in power, it is still a legitimate government. When they depose him, at that moment he will not be a legitimate president. And we are talking and referring to Syria as a state (Syrian Arab Republic). Nazara45 (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Only if the name will be called Russian-led intervention in Syria. Afterall, the article American-led intervention in Syria isn't called the "American intervention in the Syrian Civil War". SkoraPobeda (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There are precedents for this title format (e.g. Indian intervention in the Sri Lankan Civil War or United States involvement in the Mexican Revolution). That said, other titles are irrelevant.
 * The American-led intervention in Syria has the Islamic State as a primary target and it's only one aspect (the other being Iraq) of the regional anti-ISIL campaign. Russia's airstrikes, on the other hand, have a broader target: ISIL and (to a greater extent) foreign-backed rebel groups that are exclusive to the Syrian Civil War, hence the title. 197.36.19.14 (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is only the 3rd day of their intervention, Russia is already bombing ISIS in al-Raqqa. They might bomb ISIS to a greater extent soon, since Russia is in negotiations with Iraq on striking them together. Also, the US-led coalition is helping the Euphrates Volcano, which includes the Kurdish YPG and FSA. How is that not being involved in the Syrian Civil War? Not to mention that they also bombed the Al-Nusra Front and Khorasan - groups exclusive to the Syrian Civil War. SkoraPobeda (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment This remains a Civil War by all definitions. Most civil wars in history have outside countries supporting various sides. An international war involves Country A attacking Country B, while a civil war involves factions A & B (or more) fighting for control of a country. Legacypac (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per others. EkoGraf (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. More precise title, and the war is not really Civil, but includes many "foreign" sides. My very best wishes (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GreyShark's rationale. 197.36.19.14 (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support - Keep titles simple. DylanLacey (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named ":0": From Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant:  From International reactions to the Ghouta chemical attack:  From European migrant crisis:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Where did this come from?
U.S. Air Force intelligence staff said Russian air strikes were not inflicted upon opposition forces supported by the United States.
 * – Haven't seen this report in any mainstream English media, and attirubtion to "U.S. air force staff" (I capped air force) sounds vague. Documentation? Sca (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This report seems to contradict unsourced statement, which I have deleted. Sca (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This report tells there are only ~80 rebels trained by USA. My very best wishes (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It isn't only a matter of direct training by the US; it has supplied TOWs to many different groups. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Reactions-Media
Is the section necessary? IMO reactions ought to be limited to the involved parties and international bodies. I.e., ISIS, countries and orgs like Amnesty International). I can't see this section as justifiable, but maybe others do so I didn't remove it. Thoughts? Hollth (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The Chinese Question
There are an overwhelming number of sources claiming either that China is already involved or that it will be very soon. BUT I have come across a single link in the article where it is apparently a goverment denial of all of the above! I cannot verify this however as the link is in Mandarin Chinese and not English. If there are any people who can provide better sources and material as references and to establish whether or not China is indeed involved at all I would be grateful.Parsa1993 (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)