Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 43

Timeline
Shouldn't we remove the timeline from this article? Someone recently created a separate article for that: Course of events of the Syrian Civil War. Doing this would reduce the length of the article greatly.79.246.8.106 (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Should be merged here: Timeline of the Syrian Civil War FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article's length is a problem but I think the course of events section should condensed and not completely removed. The same could be done for the lengthy belligerents section, some of its content could be relocated to List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War. Charles Essie (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


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

Protect the page
This is a mess. Too many un-ID'd users making edits each day for anyone to keep track of them all. And the info box, at the very top of the page has been broken since at least December 6th, from checking history. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You can try WP:RfPP, but I doubt it'd work. The infobox is transcluded from a separate page, I just fixed it. Try purging if you can't see the fix. ansh 666 01:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I declined the request as there are considerable constructive contributions from IPs, too. Samsara 09:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I noticed some of this vandalism in the infobox, but it's not broken for me. Likewise, I just looked through the additions from my edit on December 6 up the latest edit by me, and I didn't see any vandalism that got through. See for yourself. Might wanna re-add the stuff that was removed from the lead paragraph, though. Eik Corell (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just looked at the infobox template, and it does not seem to need protection at the moment. Samsara 09:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Suggested title change to Syrian War (2011‒)
As has been argued (Oct 16) in the above thread, Title Change this is "not a civil war". This view/interpretation has been confirmed within a group of fact finders who reported back to the UN here, and specifically from 17m07s "I want to make this one particular point because I think it is very important and it gets to the core of everything that's going on: This is not a civil war in Syria that's probably the first thing we heard and it is a point that we heard over and over again. It is not President Assad against his own people.  It is President Assad and the Syrian people altogether, in unity (presumably from the perspective of the government side of the conflict) against outside forces, against outside mercenary forces, terror organisations ...".

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

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

GregKaye 09:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That's just one viewpoint cited from a Youtube named "KafkaWinstonWorld" which is not considered a very reliable source. The rebels claim the same thing, basically. They claim that the Syrian Civil War is not a civil war but it's a "revolution" by Syrians against Iraqi, Iranian, and Lebanese mercenaries. Neither side are backed by well-confirmed sources and "Syrian Civil War" remains the most neutral, common, and accurate title here. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Editor abcdef how relevant do you find comments by United Nations factfinders? GregKaye 16:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of combatants on both sides are Syrian nationals. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The UN factfinders were repeating what they heard from the people...of one side. UN factfinders are only allowed (for legal reasons) in government controlled areas. There have been plenty of reporters, who don't have that same restriction, who report basically the same thing from the other side as well. Taking one side's perspective over another is not the point of the article. Neither sees it as a civil war, but that doesn't mean it isn't one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:35A6:B0D:A8F1:7494 (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


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

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


 * For Instance here are how old the articles are (roughly):
 * "Syrian Armed Forces: 178,000[71] (1 yr 3 mos old)
 * General Security Directorate: 8,000[72] (2 yrs old)
 * National Defense Force: 80,000[73] (2 yrs old)
 * Hezbollah: 6,000–8,000[74] (9 mos old)
 * Ba'ath Brigades: 7,000 (no source)
 * Russia: 4,000 troops[75] and 1,000 contractors[76] (1 yr old)
 * Iran: 3,000–5,000[74][77] (9 mos old)"
 * FSA: 40,000–50,000[78] (3 yrs old)
 * Islamic Front: 40,000–70,000[79] (no date)
 * Fatah Halab:[a] ~25,000–32,000[80][81][82][83] (3 yrs old, 2 yrs old, 2 yrs old)
 * Other groups: 12,500[84] (9 mos old)
 * al-Nusra: 13,000[85][86] (1.5 yrs old, 1.5 yrs old)"
 * 165.123.208.59 (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The figures should stay, but with a date. That is the best way.GreyShark (dibra) 08:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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

Infobox
This has probably been brought up before, but geez, that infobox is absolutely atrocious. It's practically its own C-Class article. Is there a way to partially collapse it by default? Or...some...other way of reducing how overwhelming it is? Timothy Joseph Wood 13:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree in general. However, reducing the width is somewhat tricky without loosing crucial information. On the other hand, we can easily reduce the inflated length of the infobox - perhaps by removing heads of coalition states. I don't think anyone except commander of CJRF-OIR should be mentioned.GreyShark (dibra) 19:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Highly notable killed leaders should also be listed, such as former Assad defense minister (Dawoud Rajiha) or Islamic Front Military Chief (Zahran Alloush), etc. EkoGraf (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The SCW is the most complex war in history, so it's no wonder that the infobox is this large. But i have to agree, reducing the length might be a good idea. Maybe we can put the "not so important but still notable enough" leaders and commanders into collapsable lists, like with the KIA?79.246.8.106 (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Supporting factions could also put back into collapsed lists, like they once used to. What about the Islamist groups "Caucasus Emirate" and "Jabhat Ansar Al Din"? Are they notable enough for the infobox? And regarding the "Islamic Front", which went defunct in 2015, is it still neccessary to keep it there?
 * Those are just some ideas from me.79.246.8.106 (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not to burst anyone's bubble, but the Syrian Civil War is certainly not the most complex war in history. It's not even a contender.
 * As for the infobox, it may be helpful to use WWII as a guide, and note that many portions of what could otherwise be an overwhelming infobox have been spun off either to their own articles, or to their own sections. Timothy Joseph Wood  13:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Good points. A few suggestions: This should suffice to cut down the "Belligerents" and "Commanders" sections lengthwise by half. Albrecht (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * absolutely restore the collapsible lists for "Supporters," especially as these, a) have repeating information (USA and Russia supporting multiple parties), and b) are likely to expand (Egypt and China likely to be confirmed as SAA supporters)
 * remove CJTF–OIR participants that are not currently conducting strikes (Canada has not conducted strikes since January, and it's unclear if the Gulf monarchies are active either), and append the list with a "...and others" linking to the main CJTF–OIR article. Same applies for CJTF–OIR "Commanders."
 * condense "Opposition" section by removing extraneous formations/umbrella groups (Fatah Halab, Islamic Front and Army of Conquest being essentially re-brandings of roughly the same alliance)

I recommend severely pruning the KiA lists, which currently include many regular soldiers, not just leaders.—indopug (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Rather than scrubbing the information entirely, though, I wonder if we could begin migrating to something like List of commanders and leaders in the Syrian Civil War (similar to our "Main belligerents" page). This could also help us trim the SAR commanders section &mdash; right now we have an odd mix of famous field commanders and not-so-famous holders of top military-administrative posts; not sure who we should keep, but it's clear there isn't room for everyone. Albrecht (talk) 23:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Further, there's a crazy amount of very notable KIA on the SAR side (ministers, deputy ministers) &mdash; it would be nice to keep all this info in one place, even if it doesn't belong here. Albrecht (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Its a very complex conflict. Certainly the prime contender for most complex conflict this century. Certainly it has the most potential for many decades, (since Cuba?) of a conflict that could get out of hand. Its a bit like the 100 years war in terms of scope, if you tie in the Arab spring conflicts and the very longstanding conflicts of involved parties i.e. Saud vs Iran visible as Yemen / Hezbollah / Lebanon / Syria / Iraq. With these things in mind, I think a lot of the data already recorded would be of interest to readers, somewhere. Saint Aviator  lets talk 22:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I came here after getting whacked by the infobox. Holy smokes, that thing is huge! It would be a good case study on infoboxes to figure out how that thing evolved over time into the bloated mess that it is today. Is there some conceivable way that we could move a considerable chunk of it to a dropdown box somewhere in the article or something? Icebob99 (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Navboxes

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

Iraqi Kurdistan
The Iraqi Kurdistan provided support to Rojava during the siege of Kobani. It is not a part of the task force and has never been.GreyShark (dibra) 06:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - please respond instead of blind reverting me. I thought we have been a WP:GF editors. Thanks.GreyShark (dibra) 07:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies - I didn't see your last post. My main point is that regardless of its status, Iraqi Kurdistan's participation in Kobani merits a mention in the infobox. While I understand why you don't want it listed as a task force member (this was a misunderstanding on my part), I don't understand why some editors insist on not mentioning it at all. Do you have any suggestion? Again, sorry for missing your first post. Best, --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that it belongs to the infobox due to its role in Kobani. I do not however consider Iraqi Kurdistan as belligerent, but rather as a limited force of advisors and troops indirectly (or at most marginally) involved in fighting. In my opinion it should be listed as supporting party to Rojava during 2014-15.GreyShark (dibra) 09:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem it that this puts it in the same category as those that only provided material aid. It should be clear in the infobox that troops from Iraqi Kurdistan fought ISIS in Syria. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree, their role was mainly advisory - the same way Russia supplied advisory troops prior to its direct involvement in September 2015. We have to be clear on what is support and what is belligerency: direct involvement of troops (including air force) is belligerency, while financial, logistic and military support is support. What is military support - delivery of weapons and advisors, as well as sharing intelligence. This is my opinion.GreyShark (dibra) 17:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that troops from Iraqi Kurdistan actually fought in Kobani. If that's not the case, then I agree it should be regarded as a "supporter" rather than a belligerent. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thank you for the good faith my friend!GreyShark (dibra) 22:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Always a pleasure working with you. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Remove Arab Winter link
The article is a stub that hasn't been properly looked after since it was published. 2602:306:CC79:B20:0:0:0:49 (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would agree (as per the removal of other neologisms &mdash; "Cold War II"), but would extend it further to "Arab Spring" itself. Only one or two months of a 6-year conflict can be held to coincide with the brief historical events known as "the Arab Spring". Albrecht (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Most articles that describe what caused the war actually bring up the Arab Spring though. Most people discussing the Arab Spring use Syria as an example of its failure. The two are intertwined. And that article is at least not a stub. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:35A6:B0D:A8F1:7494 (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


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


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

Israeli warplanes strike SAA in Damascus?
AMN reported it, and BBC reported the accusations. I think it should be added, but I'm not sure which section to add it to. Esn (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nothing new - once every few months there is some report, sometimes denied by Assad regime and sometimes confirmed, but always rejected by Israel. Frankly, with 7 air forces permanently operating in Syrian airspace, there is no way to know. And by the way this specific attack was attributed by some media sources to Israeli Air Force, but Assad sources said that those were in fact ground-ground missiles, striking Riff Dimashq.GreyShark (dibra) 06:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ahrar al-Sham
Currently Ahrar al-Sham was separated into a third raw, differentiating it from Tahrir al-Sham (which indeed is fighting it right now, despite previous alliance), but also from the Syrian opposition. Is there any evidence that Ahrar al-Sham is in conflict with Syrian opposition? If not - we should put it in the same raw with Syrian opposition forces, where Ahrar al-Sham was once fighting as a member of oppositional Islamic Front, later joining with al-Nusra into Army of Conquest and now splitting again.GreyShark (dibra) 06:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Some would say red is good. Associating colour with good/bad is personal, the only really neutral colours are shades of grey. ISIS is grey, which reflects the ISIS flag, and that makes sense to me. Running with the reflect-the-flag theme, probably too much bother, but could we go for multi-coloured cross-hatching with each zone using the colours of the main flag? ;-)  Batternut (talk) 10:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Since the Syrian Republic flag has red, and the colonial flag the opposition uses has green instead, the present colours would actually seem to fit. FunkMonk (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Iraq
I think it is incorrect to list Iraq as a participant who joined in 2017. According to other sources, Iraq was a participant in 2015 already.--Donovan O&#39;Cooley (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Template errors
Recent edits (adding a few templates) have caused template errors in the article and it is in the hidden Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. To see the problem, search the article for "Template:". That shows a few templates which have not been expanded because of the problem. The article is also in Category:Pages with script errors because of a hidden error in Module:Navbar failing at line 23. I don't have time to examine that at the moment but am recording the fact that some fixes are needed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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


 * I personally think the list of factions goes into excessive detail. The actual events should be the main focus, not by-the-way kind of detail about the factions. With sufficiently rigorous work, that section alone could probably provide the needed 15%; you could probably then squeeze some more from the events section in places where it's verbose. So by all means say a sentence about the tanks and arms, with appropriate sources. The main difference will be made elsewhere. Samsara 15:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this article could easily be condensed by relocating some of the more detailed information into existing articles. For example, we have articles titled "Course of events of the Syrian Civil War" and "List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War" for which content from the "Course of events" and "Belligerents" sections could be moved to, respectively. Charles Essie (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * We could also create a new article titled "Background and causes of the Syrian Civil War" for which to relocate content from the "Background" section. Charles Essie (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

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


 * I think we shouldn't add it to "support" yet, we should wait until more reports confirm it. Once/if they do, then Egypt should be added.--PaulPGwiki (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not confirmed, hence not in the infobox. Period.GreyShark (dibra) 12:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Still unconfirmed, but according to AlMasdar and a Lebanese newspaper, Egyptian fighter jets arrived in Hama Airbase, Syria. Schluppo (talk) 14:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Inching closer to confirmed; As-Safir, while not a neutral source, is a reputable one. If true, we should get more confirmations shortly. Albrecht (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Egypt: "Our priority is to support national armies, for example in Libya to exert control over Libya territory and deal with extremist elements. The same with Syria and Iraq." (Jerusalem Post) Albrecht (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Latest on this topic: intelligence-sharing: "Egypt, Syria intelligence 'cooperating to extradite captured jihadists'" Albrecht (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Lebanese Al Akhbar is now reporting this: http://www.al-akhbar.com/node/269261 . Thoughts? Albrecht (talk) 17:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to add Egypt (2 support, while 3 oppose), especially considering Egyptian denial per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Please notice this article and template are under SCW&ISIL sanctions before you continue edit-warring not abiding the WP:BRD.GreyShark (dibra) 07:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Considering that, a) you are a party to this edit conflict, and b) you have ignored repeated opportunities to articulate your position here (and have done so only in conjunction with threats of administrative sanction), this is a fairly sorry display of WP:ADMINCOND. Your appeal to consensus is furthermore disingenuous: the only other objection on record dates back to 3 November, before a preponderance of WP:RSs emerged attesting to Egypt's involvement on the side of the SAR, which you have &mdash; conspicuously &mdash; failed to address. In other words, it's not enough to plant your heels and say "I don't like it": how, specifically, do you reject the evidence of support reported in multiple, overlapping and mutually corroborating WP:RSs?


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


 * Another ref here.  <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 21:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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

SAA downs Israeli warplane & drone?
Sources from AMN:. Israel denies that any planes were shot down but acknowledges that missiles were fired at them. It is being reported that the warplanes were targeting SAA positions at the time.

To date, I am not aware of Israel ever having struck any rebel positions, but they have sometimes struck Hezbollah and the SAA. It therefore seems that Israel should perhaps be added as supporting the "rebel" side in the infobox. I know this is very controversial, but Israel is involved in the civil war by any objective measure now, so the question is how to show this to the reader. Esn (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, Turkey should be moved from "support" to the direct combatant section, and Erdogan added under "leaders". Esn (talk) 10:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest making the infobox look like this:

Opposition (SRCC) 🇹🇷 Turkey Support: 🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia 🇫🇷 France 🇶🇦 Qatar United States
 * FSA
 * Fatah Halab (from 2015)
 * Islamic Front (2013–2015)

Army of Conquest Allied groups Support: 🇶🇦 Qatar 🇸🇦 Saudi Arabia 🇹🇷 Turkey
 * Al-Nusra Front (Jabhat Fateh al-Sham)
 * Ahrar ash-Sham
 * Turkistan Islamic Party in Syria
 * Jabhat Ansar al-Din
 * Jund al-Aqsa

🇮🇱 Israel


 * With the notes being:

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

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

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

Israel has conducted airstrikes against the Syrian government.


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

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

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


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


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


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

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

Rebel groups
Introduction section was edited to make article misleading. Introoduction part should describe the nature of the conflict and oposing forces. The information about opositioon was deleted on 1st November and introduction only describes Government forces. The follwing section should be reincluded into intrduction:

The armed opposition consists of various groups that were either formed during the course of the conflict or joined from abroad. In the north-west of the country, the main opposition faction is the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front allied with numerous other smaller Islamist groups, some of which operate under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army (FSA). The designation of the FSA by the West as a moderate opposition faction allows it, under the CIA-run programmes,  to receive sophisticated weaponry and other military support from the U.S. and some Gulf countries that effectively increases the total fighting capacity of the Islamist rebels. In the east, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a jihadist militant group originating from Iraq, made rapid military gains in both Syria and Iraq. ISIL eventually came into conflict with other rebels, especially with Al-Nusra, leaders of which did not want to pledge allegiance to ISIL. By July 2014, ISIL controlled a third of Syria's territory and most of its oil and gas production, thus establishing itself as the principal anti-government force. , Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are openly backing the Army of Conquest, an umbrella rebel group that reportedly includes an al-Qaeda linked al-Nusra Front and another Salafi coalition known as Ahrar ash-Sham, and Faylaq Al-Sham, a coalition of Muslim Brotherhood-linked rebel groups. Also, in the north-east, local Kurdish militias such as the YPG have taken up arms and have fought with both rebel Islamist factions and government loyalists.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.70.4.126 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Turkmen Brigades, Turkmen Mountain ,Syrian Turkmen Assembly and Bayırbucak ,

The Sultan Murat Brigades took control of the villages on Azaz-Jarablus front in northern Aleppo province alongside troops from the Damascus Front, a group fighting ISIL and regime forces. Turkmen seize Syrian villages controlled by ISIL

National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces Turkman Component of the Syrian National Coalition

Since Russia began air strikes on the Turkmen mountains in north-west Syria last month, nearly 5,000 people from the country's ethnic Turkmen minority have fled their homes. Many have crossed the border into Turkey's Hatay province, their plight overshadowed by a diplomatic row between Turkey and Russia.The Syrian Turkmen taking flight from Russian bombing

Technical issue
The info that was removed may be needed to be removed, but the removal misordered the whole template. Someone, fix it. שיר (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Proxy War?
Should the lede really talk about the opinion of this being a proxy war given that Russia is directly involved in bombing Idlib and Aleppo rebels? Its not really a proxy war if Russia is not solely relying on proxies, and is actually itself directly engaging in the conflict.

My suggestion is for us to move that proxy war clause from the first paragraph and have it moved down to section 9: Foreign Involvement. 68.199.221.23 (talk) 23:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's a misleading and superficial opinion. It shouldn't be in the lead, and probably shouldn't be in the article at all.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree: the proxy war aspect seems extremely important to me - not particularly Russia's involvement, but certainly between the major Sunni and Shi'ite powers. And I would speculate that if it had just been between the SAA alone versus the rebels alone it would have ended quite some time ago, one way or the other, and a whole load less blood spilt. Batternut (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Just because there is outside involvement doesn't make it a proxy war. There are very few wars with only two belligerents.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with that it is not only fair to describe this as a proxy war, but deeply inaccurate, now, to omit such a description. It may not have begun as one initially, but at this point the vast majority of all arms and financing for all sides of this conflict have come from external sources seeking to influence the resolution of the conflict on their own terms. -Darouet (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Its the definition of a proxy war. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 22:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Military strength
Estimates are way wrong here. Irans militia are there in high numbers. 100,000 plus and rotatating. Isis strength is too low. The link shows low estimates but higher than in the article. . I will find another link that shows Irans militis, Hez, Quds etc at about 150,000 in total. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 22:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Here: 'According to Colonel Mohammad Eskandari, IRGC is prepared to deploy 42 brigades,138 battalions, almost 130,000 troops to the theatre of war in Syria. The commander of the IRGC, Major-General Mohammad Ali Ja’fari, estimates that 200,000 Iranian and non-Iranian troops are currently fighting under the auspices of IRGC forces in Syria. This figure most likely includes pro-Assad militia fighters trained and armed by Iran. Various sources put the number of Iran-sponsored Shia militia troops fighting in Syria between 18,000 to 100,000'. 

100,000 here  <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 23:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

A lot of text, but little clarity
A lot of text, but it is very unclear!

What is the recent/current status of control in the disconnected 'green'-rebel areas? I read that the main factions are now Ahrar al-Sham, a Sunni salafist Saudi-Turkey backed group, and Tahrir al-Sham, an Al-Quada led salafist/wahhabist group!

What are the ideologies of these groups in control?

To what extent are the government forces real Syrians who support Assad, and not Iranian-Hezbollah and other forces?

Pretty vital information that is either not present at all, or burried all over the place... -- Dg21dg21


 * Agree, thats why I supplied the links above. Its a start. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 22:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Killed 10 soldiers, and 9 civilians (4 children). 36 US missiles could not reach the goal (high-quality video). The US refutes but there is no evidence.
Killed 10 soldiers, and 9 civilians (4 children). 1 rocket broke. Declared that the broken 36 shows a detailed | video (many objects have been preserved completely) of the entire database (the United States used 44 hits in the | picture 2 * 2 km with color pictures = nothing is visible. In fact, only half of the 44 declared objects are shown).

36 US missiles could not reach the goal (high-quality video). The US refutes but there is no evidence. The well-known fact that earlier the US used false evidence against Yugoslavia as an excuse for aggression (many times). The US admitted that they lied in evidence of guilt against Libya and Iraq. During the attack against Syria, there was a leak from the media leaks about the plans of the US to create a false accusation against Syria. Detailed video from the place of events (UAV, and on the ground color high-quality video) - 4 min.


 * I edited IP's comment because it made a reflist instead to use external links. Please do not harass other editor talk page if your edit was reverted or edited, see WP:GOODFAITH. I am not that well informed to weight if those sources are reliable, actually, I think the links to LiveJournal can not be considered as reliable source. While Lenta.ru had an issue with censorship&propaganda, sources from Vesti (VGTRK) seem to be more reliable. However, I do not see the scope for the sourced information in the current section "U.S. intervention over Syrian chemical attack" as the article is too long, and instead should be cited at 2017 Shayrat missile strike.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Immediately after the impact, captured and immediately displayed whole and equipped aircraft in the caponiers on the base. During the day flights are resumed. Any photo from the US speaking about more than 23 purposes (from 44/60 target=), there is nothing to see, absolutely low quality photos.

Shairat = article is closed.

The very fact of 36 misses is a much more important innovation. is not it?! 79.104.200.51 (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

archiving out of order?
There hasn't been any archiving since 6 Oct 2016. The Talk page is getting too long now. Can anybody get the needed archiving back into active? --Corriebertus (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe it will be archived now. Keep in mind, 18 days is awful long.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   05:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Archiving resumed about 37 hours ago.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   17:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Understanding Syria
You may want to add It emphasizes the drought and overpopulation. --Error (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Understanding Syria: From Pre-Civil War to Post-Assad, William R. Polk, The Atlantic, 10 December 2013.

Template boxes
Can anyone see what is wrong with the template boxes at the bottom of the page? I can't notice anything but they are not showing properly. A fresh pair of eyes might see it instantly. Cheers, Mtaylor848 (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There are too many templates in the page as a whole, and so excess templates display as links and the page is placed in . -- Red rose64 🌹 (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * And see just above. Johnuniq (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * This is partially due to the length of the article: —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   07:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Massive change in belligerents section
I've just reverted a massive change in belligerents section, implemented without discussion and in violation of previous consensus per WP:BRD. Please refrain from such actions.GreyShark (dibra) 05:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Early insurgency
I created the Early insurgency phase of the Syrian Civil War sub-article, similar to the long-existing Civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War article. As a result i tweaked the content in this main Syrian Civil War article on early insurgency, keeping only the abstract and creating link to the main article. This reduced the main article by more than 15k.GreyShark (dibra) 14:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * for your reference and attention.GreyShark (dibra) 14:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I like it. :) EkoGraf (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Uh, the article makes it seem like the opposition was magically peaceful until the formation of the FSA in July, which is simply false. There was no mention of the June 2011 Jisr ash-Shugur operation, which left at least 120 security personnel dead, so there were clearly armed insurgents very early on. FunkMonk (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Monk, i do not object your point. There was no single point of time when protests transformed into armed insurgency - protests lasted from March to August 2011, while insurrection began as early as June 2011. It was however agreed that Civil Uprising phase encompasses March-July 2011 and that FSA formation marks the organized insurgency phase. It doesn't mean there was no armed insurrection in civil uprising (many security personnel were killed by weapons obviously), but it means that the main course until July was civil uprising, and from 29 July it increasingly was marked by organized rebel activity.GreyShark (dibra) 18:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, but the scope of the article is the insurgency in general, not FSA or organised insurgency specifically. FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

the opposition wasn't responsible for jisr alshaghour,who attacked the soldiers were defectors,nothing to do with the protesters.Alhanuty (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If this was widely accepted fact, I doubt there would be so many different versions of the events. For a long time, the opposition even claimed the soldiers had been killed for defecting. So the different stories don't add up. FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

which is true,Soldiers who defected were killed,plus we can't rely on pro-regime sana for the events.Alhanuty (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is two mutually exclusive theories you have mentioned in a row, both obviously cannot be true. Furthermore, the cited sources are western, not Sana. --FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

those are not theories,those are events that occurred,Protests were peaceful.Alhanuty (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your first comment says the soldiers were killed by defected soldiers. Then you said the defected soldiers were the ones who got killed. Maybe your wording is just very unclear and I misunderstand it, but both statements cannot be true. --FunkMonk (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I mean that defected soldiers who can escape were killed by regime forces in daraa 2011 until late 2011.Alhanuty (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In any case, that is of course not the only version of the events. FunkMonk (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Lead issues
When you read the lead imaginning you are someone who is on the net trying to understand the so called Syrian Civil War, (once they get past the strangling infobox) you can see the lead snapshot is missing a key ingredient. Who arms the Non Syrian Govt side? Who is supplying the huge amount of weapons / logistics to sustain all these various opposing and infighting rebel / Jihadist forces thruoght this protracted conflict? This is the key thing. 'Without Arab Gulf states, Saudi, Turkish, US, UK etc support the so called rebellion would have been over years ago'. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 22:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Belligerents Infobox
Why does the infobox say the US is supporting Rojava and not Islamist rebels? During Aleppo battle it was supporting rebels who were actively fighting the Kurds. This looks like misinformation to me. Asilah1981 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * probably because some editors are still trying to limit the facts coming out about US supplies to Jihadists <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 22:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The US is listed as a supporter of the rebels in the infobox. Although significantly more support is given to the SDF, the US supports both the SDF and some FSA groups. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I said Jihadists. Even more specfically Salafi jihadism  many of whom are in Al-Qaeda who allegedly did 9/11. Not just in Operation Cyclone but recently too <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 07:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Title Change?
Why? Because it's not a civil war. I have no ideas for a title, I just cannot comprehend how "civil war" sufficiently describes the conflict. There are multiple state actors involved, the entire conflict was engineered from the outside, and therefore it cannot possibly be described as an internal conflict. I would really like to see Wikipedia set a proper example here, unlike the BBC for example who are obsessed with palming all blame onto Syria in and of itself, and instead tell it how it really is. This is a full-scale proxy war and it ought to be labelled as such. Mere Mortal (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Civil wars always involve foreign interventions. Could you even name a modern civil war that does not involve foreign states? There is no rule that says foreign states cannot participate in civil wars at all. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * This article made me totally lose my faith on Wikipedia. Must be one of the most biased articles ever written. It's clearly pro-US and pro-Israel if you could put a label on it. Shame on the editors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:D47:2EC7:9300:7C9F:5C61:8023:848D (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * WP:COMMONNAME applies and the title is generally accurate MarkiPoli (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mere Mortal. Google the term and read the very first definition. Beingsshepherd (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The UN ICRC has changed conflict status in Syria from Civil war to "International Armed Conflict". 

I guess it's a good sign that the title should be changed? --WikiNameBaks (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If the title does change, please update the MiszaBot/config so archiving may continue.  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   07:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the above comment, simply due to definition alone and wikipedia trying its best to gather FACT or factual statements, as much as possible. The problem with the term "civil war" refers to an inner-conflict. However had, we know various examples of where FOREIGN fighters are also partaking within Syria, on all involved sides. While I do not doubt that there is inner-syrian conflict as such, I heavily doubt that the conflict is as one-sided as wikipedia currently insinuates with the "civil war" comment. I think we'd need to find some other term... perhaps not solely civil but a hybrid war. We don't know who all supports who since information is largely shielded from the general public in most countries. 2A02:8388:1641:4700:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It is a civil war because all sides are fighting over the same country. It is not war between countries where country A attacks country B although the US missile strike starts to border on that, but because the US strike was limited it is more a military action than a war. Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not not not a civil war. Not. . Its a Middle East wide conflict between countries. Turkey attacks Syria. Israel attacks Syria. US invades Syria illegally. Over 100,000 Iranian forces are in Syria by invitation. Iraqi militias are there. Hezbollahs army. Saudi ilitary advisors, illegally. Special forces from all over Europe. Russians. Arabs from all over. Isis. Al Qaeda. Afgani Shites. etc. The fighting and beligerents are also in Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Golan Heights, Lebanon, Turkey. (PKK). The real kicker is not international intervention after the start but international intervention started it. Wikipedias editors as a whole are too stuck in the mud, too unbold, too biased, too conservative, to look in to this or change the name from this very very inadequate title. Its the wrong name, btw. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 07:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As has been mentioned a gazillion times before, all other civil wars in history have had foreign actors. The last war most similar to this one is the Lebanese civil war (though on a smaller scale). FunkMonk (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Anything short of a move request discussion here isn't going to lead to a title change as this is a controversial move. I tried to close the discussion here asking nicely that the arguments that have already been presented be looked at. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The US should be included as a belligerent
The US has SOF actively in combat alongside SDF. They are beyond the role of support.

204.197.176.8 (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It is. The US is listed as the first of CJTF-OIR, a major belligerent. Editor abcdef (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * CJTF-OIR is listed under support. IMO the support descriptor should be removed. 69.166.120.148 (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes they are a belligerent. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 20:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Separation of Jaysh al-Islam from FSA and FSA conjuction with HTS
The current infobox doesn't reflect the realities in Syria on the ground.

I believe, considering the recent events, that Jaysh al-Islam should have its own section in oppossition tab, apart from FSA, considering the militant groups are fighting eachother all over Eastern Ghouta with mass casualties on both sides, towns being captured and lost etc. I've written a lot about this in the article Qaboun offensive (February–April 2017), because this conflict doesn't have an article of its own.

Also the FSA faction (Faylaq al-Rahman) in Eastern Ghouta and Qaboun are closely linked and fighting alongside Hayyat Tahrir al-Sham rebel alliance, same situation in Northern Hama with Free Idlib Army, Jaysh al-Izza and Jaysh al-Nasr factions allying themselves with Tahrir al-Sham, same situation in Daraa governorate between Southern Front and Tahrir al-Sham.

So essentially all most active combat fronts witness close alliance between FSA and HTS, though there is no cooperation between Jaysh al-Islam and FSA at all.

I would like to mention that for reasons unclear, Tahrir al-Sham rebel coalition is present at the very bottom of the infobox, with FSA and Ahrar al-Sham being at the top, this seems counterintuitive to me, because HTS is by far larger rebel alliance than FSA or AaS and they are the ones leading offenses all over syria against the Syrian Army. GroundlessAir (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Everyone in Syria has fought everyone else at some point. Creating and removing separation lines every time someone attacks an ally will be an eternal and ultimately futile procedure. A better solution is just to wait and see how alliances evolve in the long run, then we can change the infobox, rather than changing it back and forth every other week. FunkMonk (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree with FunkMonk. EkoGraf (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with FunkMonk. In addition, throughout the 6-year war, the FSA fought HTS far more than they have fought JaI. The Rahman Legion does not represent all of the "FSA" and two other major FSA-affiliated groups in Eastern Ghouta, the Glory Brigades and the 1st Brigade, have stayed neutral in the infighting so far. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes we wait. There are no loyalties or strong bonds amoungst the Rebels or Jihadists as there is for instance in the Russian or US Military and even the Syrian military looks good compared to them. These proxie mercenary like rebels and the deluded Jihadists are currently killing each other in Ghouta and it will go on. The next big thing is this. . <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 20:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox problems
The infobox is strangling the article. Both the lead and toc are sandwiched into the left-hand corner, and it's impossible to read with any comfort. I don't even dare try to check it on my mobile. I suggest a rethink of the presentation in order to get the article under control. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Correct. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 22:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty ridiculous on mobile. The lead can barely fit three words to a line. Here's what it looks like in Safari on an iPhone 6. Lizard  (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah its a contaminated monster. Due to its size it needs to be under the lead. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 05:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The main purpose of an infobox is (or should be) to highlight major points of the article, not to try to cram into it as much of the article as possible. Actually, I'd be willing to bet half of what appears in the infobox doesn't actually appear anywhere else in the article. Is there any way the infobox can be condensed/reduced while remaining neutral and not pissing anyone off? I'm not confident on the latter, but the former should be possible. Lizard  (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Imagine the hassle and discussion. Lol. Thing is we have not had a war like this one for a long time. Nothing like it since WW2. Its more complex than Vietnam, Korea in the 50's, Iraqi twice, Afghanistan, all the pissant wars. The info box probably does not even truly reflect the complexity. I know the article does not. So I think we are stuck with it. It views OK on a PC, not phones. A workaround may be arranging the info box under the lead. <b style="color:blue">Saint Aviator </b> <i style="color:blue">lets talk</i> 22:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Whether you need an article on the Syrian Arab army offensive against rebel positions between Eastern Qalamun and Eastern Homs?
Whether you need an article on the Syrian Arab army offensive against rebel positions between Eastern Qalamun and Eastern Homs or is it part of Eastern Homs offensive (2017)? I do not think you need a new member, or if you need then do we start?--Baba Mica (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Separate offensives. EkoGraf (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Amnesty report from 2013
I removed it from the lede, since it is heavily outdated (predates the emergence of ISIS even), and moreover, it is just a single report by a single agency. Over the course of this war, dozens of reports have been published. Don't see why we should highlight one of those in the lede. Khirurg (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically I agree, I only attempted to be more specific regarding Marek's addition on who stated it and when. But yeah, basically one report from four years ago (outdated) isn't really lead material. EkoGraf (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can replace it with a general statement which says the same thing. There's newer reports so it can be updated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit summaries that are FALSE
Re this revert. How in the world is this "SYNTH"? It's straight from the source (that someone else added). It's the sentence pretty much right after the previous one that was inserted. Please revert just to edit war.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2017
Regarding Iranian casualties: the article mentions 400 Iranian soldiers being killed and 600 foreign militia of Afghan, Iraqi and Pakistani oirgin. I think this should be mentioned instead of 1000 Iranian soldiers which is inaccurate. Veritas787 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what I've been saying in the edit summaries each time I corrected this. Iranian forces in Syria are not just Iranians. Iranian forces are also composed of Afghans, Pakistanis and Iraqis. And they are all already included in the Other non-Syrian fighters figure, thus putting the number separate is double-counting. Per previous compromise reached, we show in brackets beside the other non-Syrians figure the established number of killed Iranian nationals (since Iran's involvement is notable). The nationalities of the others are listed in the article on the casualties of the Syrian civil war. EkoGraf (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Discuss here and obtain consensus before making a semi-protected edit request, please. This has been discussed in the past, so it isn't uncontroversial. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 18:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)