Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Syrian civil war

Starting mediation
Welcome to the mediation. I've read the article talk page and I'm delighted by the depth of discussion that has already taken place and the general civility that's been maintained throughout (I know that can be difficult). To start, I ask each participant to make an opening statement of no more than 200 words describing your views on the dispute and what opportunities you think are open for resolution. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Kudzu1's opening statement
Thanks, Xavexgoem. My position is that no country or faction that doesn't have combat troops or a command-and-control role in Syria should be listed in the infobox. Right now, the only truly belligerent factions are the Syrian government, the Syrian opposition, certain foreign jihadist groups, Hezbollah, and Iran; Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan are debatable. Either way, the U.S., UK, France, etc., don't have troops in Syria. They're not even selling weapons to a faction -- unlike Russia. Yet political supporters of the opposition are listed as belligerents for such reasons as sending non-lethal equipment (even medicine!) to the rebels, or gathering intelligence on the situation. If consensus is in favor of listing countries that support a faction in the civil war this way, though, I really don't think Russia can be excluded. To do so demonstrates a huge double standard. It doesn't matter if Russia had a preexisting arms deal with the government, or if the Syrians are paying; they've still been sending lethal equipment to a combatant in this conflict. It stops being "just business" when those weapons are being used in a war. And that's way more than any Western country has done. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Futuretrillionaire's opening statement
Thank you Xavexgoem, the edit-warring over this issue was really getting out of control. There was a majority agreement to include the 4 Western opposition supporters (US, UK, France, and Germany) providing non-lethal aid or intelligence in the infobox, but only under collapsible list format. However, the idea that not including Russia, who has been selling arms and sending advisers to Syria, under that format in the infobox is un-neutral is misguided. The way Russia is helping Syria is very different from the way the 4 Western countries are helping the rebels. Those 4 countries are directly sending military aid or intelligence, with the clear intention to help the rebels in war and weaken Assad. On the other hand, Russia have sold arms to many countries. What they do with those Russian-made arms is not Russia's responsibility. Think of it like this: a gun stop can't get blamed if a customer purchased a gun and used it to murder people. The advisers Russia sends to train the Syrian soldiers how to use Russian weapons are not exactly involved in the conflict.

It's unclear if Russia's intentions are to support Assad and crush the rebels. Russia claimed to be neutral, and said they wanted both the Syrian government and the opposition to compromise. The 4 Western countries on the other hand, mostly just condemned Assad.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

EllsworthSK's opening statement
Thanks, man. My opinion is that we should include neither side as it makes mess in the infobox. This whole "who-supports-who" thing can be incorporated into the article just fine without any infobox wars. However, since inclusion of Western countries into the infobox under military/non-military aid was supported by vast majority I took a same approach to Russia. We have sources which states that Western countries (Turkey, France, UK, USA) do are 1, intelligence cooperation 2, weapons delivery 3, non-military aid (food, medicine, basically humanitarian aid) 4, political support while Russian support is in form of 1, weapons delivery 2, intelligence cooperation 3, non-military aid 4, political support And claimng to be neutral and being neutral are two different things. Russia is not more neutral than USA, they are blocking all resolutions in UNSC, they are expressing support to current Syrian regime, supplying weapons which are adamant for continuing military campaign of Syrian regime (including attack helicopters which usage has risen in past months), supplying essentials like bank-notes (which Syrian regime was previously printing in Switzerland before the EU sanctions) etc. We cannot tell that one side supports and other does not only because of a written agreement, those are simply semantics. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wüstenfuchs' opening statement
Thank you Xavexgoem.

The countries that are actively aiding the rebels with services and weapons (UK, USA, Germany...) are doing it for free with one intention - to help the rebels. On the other hand, Russia has a pre-war sales contract with Syria with an obligation to respect it. They are recieving the money for a contract that was sined even before the Civil War broke out and Russia's position is neutrality. Russia also said not to make any new contract after this one expires. Military advisors that Russia has are part of the contract as those advisors need to show Syrians how to use Russian arms. As for Western countries, if you give free services to someone it means you are aiding him. USA, UK, Germany etc with this want rebels' victory. They choose their side in the war so it is the reason why they need to be included. On the other hand Russia is saleing arms under the old contract with the UN-member state. Putin himself said that he doesn't supports Assad. There were claims that Russia is supporter as they oppose the embargo on Syria, which is really a political question. This claim is ridicilous as one must support embargo in order to stain neutral... that's bad logic. -- Wüstenfuchs  15:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening statement by Lothar von Richthofen
Thank you to Xavexgoem for taking on this thorny matter.

I generally agree with Kudzu1 and EllsworthSK on the matter. Cramming every country that ships a few bandages or satellite phones over into the infobox is grossly overweighting their "participation" in the conflict. The collapsible-list compromise I can live with, but only on the condition that Russia gets included as well. Otherwise, the infobox just becomes a mockery of NPOV. The Syrian government has been receiving weapons of war from Russia, which have been directly used to kill its own population. Russia also has boots on the ground, directing government forces on how to use said weapons for the purpose of said killing. That no new contracts are being drawn up is also irrelevant—that decision was made only this summer, and this conflict has been raging since March of last year. Russia has provided support for the Syrian government through a significant portion of the conflict, acting as the "lifeline" for the Assad government (NYT), and that merits inclusion. I completely and utterly reject the semantic contention by Wüstenfuchs that "free aid" is the standard of inclusion for the infobox. At the end of the day, there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. The standard of inclusion is preferential support for one side in an armed conflict—regardless of whatever "business" smokescreens are thrown up. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment from a random IP
I'm a former editor, just editing from IP now because it keeps me from having a watchlist and getting too involved because I tend to have trouble remaining detached. Thanks to everyone who's willing to keep calm about this, and to Xavexgoem for taking on the thankless task of shepherding this toward a conclusion.

My personal preference is to leave it out, but if so I'd also leave out a lot of the other "sorta involved" parties and keep the infobox simple.

I've tossed a request for comment to the military history project to get some broader input on how these infoboxes are used. The same standards for inclusion should apply to this article as apply in other similar articles - readers comparing a Syrian civil war to an American civil war should be able to compare apples to apples. 150.148.0.65 (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor Nick-D
I'm responding to the request for comments which was left at WT:MILHIST. As background, I'm highly experienced in writing articles on military topics, and am currently one of the project's coordinators. From memory, I haven't had any involvement in this article at all. The issue of who should be in or out of infoboxes often comes up, and my view is that as infoboxes are not good at dealing with 'shades of grey', it's best to exclude participants whose involvement in a war/battle isn't clear cut, and instead include a note in the infobox pointing to the discussion of the differing views in the body of the article. I'd like to commend all the editors who are involved in this disagreement for their very civil posts above. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved editor RightCowLeftCoast
As with Nick-D, I'm responding to the request for comments which was left at WT:MILHIST. Only active verified (with reliable sources) belligerents should be included in the infobox. Non-active belligerents should be excluded from the infobox, and any "grey" area as another editor has put it, can be included in a neutral properly weighted manor if it is verified.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

My take on the dispute
Thank you all for your speedy replies! It can take mediations quite a while to get through opening statements, and I'm overjoyed that we can move through this at a quicker pace. I am especially pleased that the focus has largely been on content instead of contributors, and I think it's very important that we maintain that going forward.

After reading the opening statements, here's my broad take on the dispute:


 * There are strong political and ethical views about Russia's involvement with Syria.
 * There are differing ideas about what constitutes "support", broadly construed.
 * There are differing ideas about what level of information should be presented in an infobox.
 * The infobox should be unbiased, in accordance with our neutral point of view.
 * Information in the infobox should not be included if it's based on original research.
 * Information in the infobox should be sourced, and it will be important for this mediation that we come to an agreement on credible sources.

Is everyone in agreement with this? Have I missed anything important? Again, thank you for the quick replies. --Xavexgoem (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You're points are all correct. I'll like to add that one of the fundamental disagreements we have here is what kind (not exactly "level") of support should be included in the infobox, and also the definition of "belligerent" and "support". The article uses a military infobox, so only "military support" (weapons, equipment, tactics, intelligence) should be included. We know for sure from reliable sources that Russia has sold to Syria arms and sent advisers to train Syrian soldiers how to use those weapons as part of a contract that started before the uprising. However, I'm haven't seen a reliable source confirming Russia providing intelligence support. We are having trouble agreeing on whether or not what Russia is doing counts as "military support". -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me start with intelligence support, as it was me who brought it up Moscow will support the Assad regime primarily at the political level, intelligence and humanitarian spheres. There are no large weapons shipments planned. Nezavisimaya Gazeta obtained these reports from military and diplomatic sources who participated in recent talks with Syria's official delegation, which visited Moscow earlier in the week. and here is the original, Russian article . Second, I agree with your points. And third, arguments against the inclusion of Russia in the infobox are not really about the "Russian support is not that big", but rather on level that Russian support is because of biding contracts and that selling of weapons to Syria is not illegal since there are no UN sanctions against regime of Bashar al-Assad. What I find as purely semantics since infobox does not state how the states support this or that side but whether they do. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there any other source to confrime Gazeta's article (WP:WEIGHT)? Russia doesn't support Syria in any way, except if we observe this contract as a support (which isn't). The arguments for not including Russia are not based on legality/illegality of the contract but on the fact that Russia is not aiding Syria in any other way while selling the arms is not aiding someone. Why the question of legality/illegality is important to some users? Seling arms when forbiden would be considered support while selling arms when allowed is considered nothing but seling arms. That's why this question was raised after all. -- Wüstenfuchs  16:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We're not talking about "free aid", we're talking about preferential support, regardless of "legality". Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as "nothing but selling arms" when you're selling them to a government that is at war with its own people. And if Russia doesn't support Syria in any way, then what would you call President Putin's statements sympathizing with Damascus' spurious claim that the opposition are "foreigners" and "armed terrorist gangs"? What would you call Russia's interventions at the United Nations to block more critical language, to say nothing of sanctions? Russia is not simply "neutral" in this, no matter how much it claims to be. It's backed a horse, same as France and Qatar have. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are. And here we go again. USSR had written treaties with North Vietnam during Vietnam War, no? So why are they listed as support together with several others WP members. And selling arms when forbidden and not forbidden... When we will get to this argument (and I don´t think we can avoid it) that will be one long discussion, but before that let me phrase it simply. Selling arms to party which existence depends on provision of those weapons is support. Everything else is semantics. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you all. I still would like to hear from all involved whether the summary I provided is the correct one; I don't want to incorrectly infer and continue on if we're not on the same page. I've heard clear "yes"s from Futuretrillionaire and EllsworthSK. Would everyone else be willing to chime in? Xavexgoem (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree those are the basic issues involved. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. Sounds about right. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The summary is fine. -- Wüstenfuchs  17:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you all!
 * I think the first things to really look at are the sources. Sourcing has not been a significant topic of discussion previously, so I think this will give us a good base to start off of. I've added a section below where these can be added, and you're free to discuss sources as they're added. --Xavexgoem (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Lothar Kudzu, the source you added for Russian intelligence support is definitely not reliable. It says the two Turkish pilots shot down were captured and murdered by the Syrian government, while RS say that they died when they crashed. Also the source you added for "Russian refusal to comply with sanctions" doesn't say anything about sanctions. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That report is based off Syrian government documents. As for the sanctions ref, I copy-and-pasted the wrong URL. It's been corrected. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The source for Germany is absolutely outrageous. Let's look at the sub-headline: "Germany is helping Syrian rebels by providing them with information gathered by a German navy vessel off the coast of Syria, a newspaper [i.e. Bild, essentially a tabloid] said on Sunday, without citing sources." Reuters is just reporting rumours here and does not present them as fact. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If there are no objections, I'm going to remove Germany from the infobox because A) the Reuters source is just saying that the tabloid Bild made some unsourced allegations and B) it is peripheral to the mediation. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

CIA
I like The New York Times, but that article on the CIA steering weapons to the rebels doesn't cite any named source saying the same thing, and both the Obama administration and the FSA have denied that weapons have been sent from the Americans to Syrian fighters. NYT is generally reliable, but in the case of an article relying on second-hand anonymous sources, I'm sticking a question mark on that story. Those details just have not been corroborated. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see any strong reason to doubt the NYT in this case. Plus, a Wall Street Journal report says the same thing: the CIA, working with agents from Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar are examining rebel groups, helping to decide which groups are to be given arms, "develop logistical routes for moving supplies into Syria and providing communications training" -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that any mention of that source within the article would need to be properly attributed in-text (e.g., "A New York Times article reports that, according to unnamed sources, yada yada yada"). That's the usual solution for citations like this. Does that sound fair? Xavexgoem (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We're mainly debating about which countries should be presented in the infobox, where attribution would be difficult. Attribution in the article would be appropriate if the NYT article is very questionable and it's the only one saying it. However, we have multiple RS reporting CIA involvement. Therefore I think don't attribution is necessary in this case. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:32, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see a named source in that Wall Street Journal piece, either. Part of the whole "fog of war" isn't media just making stuff up, it's one or two people who don't have the full story or aren't telling the full story spouting off "on background" and that information propagating through various means. It's like a game of telephone. And without named sources, I think it unquestionably requires attribution, e.g. "American newspapers, citing unnamed U.S. government sources, have reported an alleged CIA role..." -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

NG
EllsworthSK, the Novaya Gazeta source you added not only doesn't say anything about Russia providing intelligence, it's not even in English. I have suspicions that it is not a reliable source.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just because you don't know Russian doesn't mean the source is unreliable. Here is the relevant sentence: "Источники в Минобороны утверждают, что Москва поддерживает Дамаск по линии разведки, а также военно-дипломатическими методами." (rough transl. "Sources in the Defense Ministry say that Moscow supports Damascus by providing intelligence, in addition to military and diplomatic methods of support"). Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lothar. Google Translate (which I suppose you were using) translates информационной (intelligence/information) as media. Don´t know why. Anyway, NG is RS (no complains on it on RSN, even made as an example of Russian RS once), I see no reason at all why should it be unreliable. It won Henri Nannen Prize in 2007 and Four Freedoms Award in 2010. And fact that it is not in English, but Russian (given that it is Russian newspaper which focuses on investigative journalism with primary focus on Russia) is not a problem. Both me and Lothar speak Russian (though I admit that my Russian is clumsy) and if you ask we can translate some parts for you which Google Translate may screw up. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, my Russian's probably worse than yours. I'm better off reading German or Scandinavian media (neither of which are quite relevant here), but I can pick through a small bit of Russian ("разведки" was the tip-off for me here, kind of skimmed the rest of the article). Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We're on the English Wikipedia. We use only English sources. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense EllsworthSK (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have sent the article to the Reliable sources noticeboard for them to check it out . Meanwhile, its reliability should be kept as . -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently we were talking about the wrong NG. It's Nezavisimaya Gazeta? Did this won so many awesome rewards and recognition? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nezavisimaya is a smaller paper, but not known for peddling unreliable news like the state-run agencies. It was once part of the same group as Kommersant, one of the big names in good Russian news. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Leaked Syrian documents
Lothar, the sources you recently added about leaked Syrian intelligence documents said the documents "were obtained with the assistance of members of the Syrian opposition who refused to elaborate on how they laid hand on the documents" (Al Arabiya). Don't you find that suspicious? I wonder if this is where NG got it's info from. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope, not the same source. Nezavisimaya Gazeta got its info from government sources, while Al Arabiya got theirs through a separate documents leak. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can someone who can read Russian please read the article and tell us where exactly did NG got its info regarding Russian intelligence from? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Источники в Минобороны"—"Sources in the Ministry of Defence". Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Same deal as the CIA stories, then. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Not the same deal. We know for a fact that Obama not only officially authorized sending non-lethal military aid to the rebels, he also authorized the CIA to help the rebels. Multiple highly reliable sources report CIA activities helping rebels along the Turkish and Jordan border. Meanwhile, we have only one source from a small newspaper claiming to know that sources in the Russian Defense Ministry said that Russia is providing intelligence to Syria. Other claims of Russian intelligence are based on fake leaked Syrian documents fabricated by the rebels. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "fabricated by the rebels" Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Read what I quoted from Al Arabiya again.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "fabricated" Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * My main point here is that the leaked Syrian documents are unreliable because the rebels who provided them refused to explain how they got these documents. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * They are certainly questionable at this point, but the situation is not clear enough to declare them "unreliable". Until then, your allegations of "fake" and "fabricated" are pure opinion on your part. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

We can't decide the reliability of primary sources, which in general aren't usable on their own. We leave that to the secondaries; deciding that for ourselves is OR. Are the secondaries reliable? --Xavexgoem (talk) 20:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources are already citing officials who are refuting the claims made by these leaked documents: -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Again with this double-standard on "anonymous government sources". Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's see here, anonymous rebels mysteriously obtained these documents, then anonymous officials are refuting them. This whole situation is ridiculous. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Given your knee-jerk rejection of a source based on the language it is written in, I don't exactly place full trust in your ability to judge source reliability. This is a fairly major scandal for all parties involved, and you can bet that there will be conflicting statements from all sides while the media whips itself up. In the source provided, Al Arabiya states that it has "verified and authenticated hundreds of these documents". Until the dust settles, judgement should be reserved. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, guys, keep from making personal comments. Lothar, your comment would have been fine if you removed the first sentence in the above comment.
 * Can we all agree that this issue is, at least, rather nuanced? --Xavexgoem (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Clearly very nuanced. And that really strikes at the crux of why I think it's inappropriate to include any of these countries in the infobox. The infobox is a place to present clear-cut information very quickly and graphically (with the little flags and other symbols, I mean), and when you have a situation where countries' level of belligerence is murky at best (and I believe the sources strongly indicate that situation exists for Russia as well as for the U.S., UK, France, and Germany), it's much better to explain that in-text rather than try to slap a bunch of vaguely worded qualifiers into the infobox, as is being done presently. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Context of dispute
I'd like to summarize how this dispute came about. Initially, the 4 Western countries were added the infobox following reports of them sending non-lethal military aid or intelligence to the rebels. They were added along with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, countries that were supplying the rebels with weapons. There were complaints about it regarding undue weight, so brief descriptions in parentheses were added next the the newly listed countries, such as "(intelligence support)" or "(non-lethal aid)". Many people complained that the infobox looked messy, and people continued to argue that including those countries was undue weight.

After a long edit war, a poll and discussion was started at the talk page:. What resulted was a somewhat strong majority agreement to include the 4 Western countries in the infobox, but only under collapsible list format. Here are the specific results:

Support for inclusion of countries, but not in collapsible list format (3): TaalVerbeteraar, Alabamaboy1992(?), DanielUmel(?)[a.k.a ChronicalUsual, now community-banned]

Support for inclusion of countries in collapsible list format (9): Futuretrillionaire, Wüstenfuchs, EkoGraf, L1A1 FAL, Asarlaí, Lothar von Richthofen, Knowledgekid87, Mohamed CJ, Kudzu1

Oppose inclusion of countries in infobox (4): Greyshark09, Sayerslle, I7laseral, Sopher99

All voters have contributed to the discussion.

Then, some people wanted to include Russia as well i the infobox under collapsible list format and argued that not including it would be violating neutrality. Others argue that Russia's behavior does not quality it to be listed in the infobox. After the inability to find a consensus in the talk page and the constant edit-warring, I've decided to send a request for mediation to sort this situation out.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You are taking my contributions out of context. I expressly stated several times that my preference was to exclude these countries from the infobox, but that if they were to be included -- which I repeatedly said I disagreed with -- then they should be put into collapsible lists. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Fairly certain that's common knowledge now. Kind of why the dispute got accepted in the first place. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This really does seem to be a textbook example of where infoboxes over-simplify things. As I suggested above, removing the disputed countries from the infobox, and replacing this with a note(s) directing readers to the relevant section of the article would probably be the best solution. Given that this is an ongoing conflict which in which intelligence agents and possibly elite special forces teams from other countries have had some involvement, it's all but certain that there are other countries who have had some role in the war but have so far managed to keep it secret and that some of the reports of foreign involvement appearing in reliable sources will be nonsense (remember that journalists are writing the 'first draft of history', and often get things wrong as they don't have access to all the relevant information). The secretive nature of these activities also means that there aren't going to be any references which provide irrefutable confirmation of foreign involvement, or the lack thereof - denials by national governments need to be treated with suspicion given that they, for very obvious reasons, almost never confirm ongoing intelligence and special forces operations. Similarly, any claims of involvement from national governments may be exaggerated, and there's no way to test their accuracy until the dust settles. As such, there simply isn't going to be a good way to resolve this infobox issue, as the infobox is, by its nature, not well suited to dealing with this kind of situation. Nick-D (talk) 02:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I came as another involved editor (although I've had similar issues with the Spanish Civil War). I was going to type my own opinion, upon reading Nick's I completely agree. Not suited to shades of grey; omission from the infobox is not conclusive to the reader - if they are interested they will seek out the further details. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally see that as reasonable compromise and hope that we will eventually agree on that. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I like Nick-D's solution. However, I'd like to first examine some articles that are using that "notes in the infobox" format. Can someone list a few such articles? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As some examples, World War II, Pacific War and Iraq War do this. Iran–Iraq War takes a slightly different approach which may be of interest (though I think it would be hard to apply here). Falklands War includes only Argentina and the UK in the infobox, but also has a section which discusses the involvement of other countries in some detail. Nick-D (talk) 02:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - i would like to add that in my opinion including arms suppliers in a collapsible list is a reasonable solution, only in case only 'one' collapsible list is used, and not four like now. It is a mess and an UNDUE:WEIGHT to specify "tactical support", "UN support", or any other undue or impossible to verify support in the infobox. If Russia supplies arms, then it should clearly be in a collapsable infobox as well. Whether Russians are selling or giving the weapons for free is irrelevant - apparently most of the debts of Syria to Soviets over weapon sales were annualized, and it might happen again. I would also like to remind the issue of Iran and Hizbullah, who in my opinion are "supporting" the Syrian government, while several other editors consider them full-time combatants, even though they don't admit a full-scale participation in war.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Compromise
The only heavily disputed country here is Russia. I still think putting the Western countries under collapsible list format is appropriate. But for the sake of neutrality and ending this dispute, I'm okay with removing Russia and the Western nations from the infobox and replacing them with a note that leads readers to the Foreign involvement section. However, we need to decide on exactly how this note will work. I've checked the articles Nick-D listed, but they all seem to use different methods. Here is what I suggest. Remove the collapsible lists, and put a note under Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar that says "For other forms of foreign involvement, see here". I'm not sure if we need to add another note on the Syrian government side. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This is acceptable to me. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sounds agreeable. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ The compromise has been implemented.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything else that needs doing? --Xavexgoem (talk) 17:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Greyshark still thinks that Iran and Hezbollah should be classified as supporters, not combatants in the infobox. There has been a heavy debate about it here: Talk:Syrian civil war. That's the only other infobox dispute that's going on. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, it would be good to solve this dispute together with the dispute about whether Turkey should be classified as supporter or combatant, since, due to the recent clashes, Turkey might be more of an combatant than Iran and the same classification criterion should be used for each participant. --93.139.211.164 (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Iranian military officials have confirmed that Iran has troops fighting in Syria. At this juncture, all Turkey has done is shell Syrian positions in retaliation for the bombing of Turkish civilians. There's no indication that it was done in support of the rebels, either. However, if Turkish troops actually enter Syria and start actively fighting, then there may be cause for a change in the infobox. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the Turkey-Syria border clashes are materially akin to the Tunisia-Libya border clashes during the Libyan civil war and should be presented the same way. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Some editors would disagree. For example, FunkMonk said "If Iran is a combattant, Turkey sure as hell is too. Otherwise, remove both.". Therefore, it is a dispute which should be discussed. --93.139.211.164 (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really a dispute. Unlike Iran, Turkey has no known troops in Syria; however, it is, like Iran, exchanging fire with a faction in the war. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Are there any RS confirming that Iran is exchanging fire with a faction in the war? --93.139.211.164 (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

The infobox disputes seem to have ended by now. Turkish border clashes has been indicated, and Nick-D commented on the Iran and Hezbollah dispute. I think it's safe to close this mediation session. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good.
 * And let me just say that this sort of outcome very rarely happens. This has been 10/10. --Xavexgoem (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)