Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Infobox very misleading

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, this has been discussed to death before and, even though consensus can change, bringing it up less than a month after the previous discussion ended can be considered disruptive. Second, I am tending to agree with FunkMonk on this issue plus there is no crystal balling here, and the current multinational involvement in Syria is very likely a pretext to attack Assad as well. Also, arbitrarily deciding to put the Kurds on the opposition's column is extremely erroneous. The number of Kurds killed by regime forces is negligible, and if they are currently in a pact with some rebel groups to fight ISIS, it doesn't mean that it is necessarily an "alliance" and that it will last. Placing the Kurds with Turkey in the same column is also just wrong [1], and there are much more jihadist groups in the opposition than Al-Nusra, so having the Kurdish-allied Syriacs with them in the same column is even more misleading. The Kurds should be in the regime's column if anything as neither of them has ever declared war on the other since the conflict began. As FunkMonk said in the last discussion, what needs to be done here is to look at the precedents and use them as a bright line demarcation between the opposing factions when a conflict's future developments is as unclear as this one's. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Kurds stopped clashing with government forces since Assad handed over[2] some territory to them in July 2012. So arguing that the Kurds' self-declaration of independence justifies having them on the opposition's side is becoming increasingly weak.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. PYD is the PKK's Syrian offshoot,[3] thus it cannot be in the same column with Turkey [4] and it certainly should not be in the same column with the Islamist (and non-Islamist) rebel groups it had clashed with severely over the past four years.

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

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

All there is to say is:

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

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

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

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

I just made a series of edits to put the Kurds in both the government and opposition columns, as their only constant enemy in this conflict has been the Islamic State (which I don't think was ever an "ally" of the opposition; it was always a rival group, even if full-fledged fighting between the factions didn't break out until about a year ago: [5] [6] [7]). If someone doesn't like it, they can certainly go ahead and revert and come back here to explain why, but I think it's a better way of representing the sides in this war than has been done in the past. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Like Kudzu says. Infobox indicates co-belligerence. As for the sources on SAA/NDF cooperation against ISIS in Hasakah here [8]. Its not really simply a truce if they are conducting joint combat operations against ISIS. Also, the main opening argument above about putting the Kurds in the same column as the rebels was that there was no open hostilities between them and the rebels at the moment. Well, seems you forgot about not being any open hostilities between them and Assad forces ether at the moment. So please stop with the POV-pushing in regards to the Kurds. They get their own column or they need to be indicated to be aligned with both the opposition and Assad. The Kurds are nether pro- or anti-Assad or even pro- or anti-opposition. After reviewing the new layout presented by Kudzu I will drop the issue if his model of the infobox stays because I support it totally. EkoGraf (talk) 21:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone needs to propose it at some technical community portal[9][10], then there probably has to be long discussion about it. Those who complain about it all the time should take that responsibility. I'm personally fine with three columns, so won't be me. But I am getting tired of this being endlessly proposed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparently, the original problem of 27 September in this section does no longer exist because the infobox has been importantly altered since then. Perhaps people still want to discuss a related or left-over problem. Then, please, start that in a new section-- you can't expect visitors to first read this enormously long discussion, which is now mostly overtaken by time and developments. --Corriebertus (talk) 08:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

One thing that didn't get settle sis what to do with Nusra. Are they even fighting IS anymore? Also, interestingly, seems some US analysts are defending Nusra. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/10/02/241894_us-anti-assad-rebels-in-syria.html?sp=/99/200/111/&rh=1 FunkMonk (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This being a new discussion, I've taken the liberty to replace it into a new section, below: Talk:Syrian Civil War#A problem with the Infobox, concerning al-Nusra. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

How reliable or relevant are these "thoughts" of Mr. Barabandi?

In section 2.1 (Protests etc.,Jan–Jul2011), one or several editors have added, that:

1. In March2011 (=30March2011), Assad claimed in his speech an international terrorist conspiracy…;
2. ‘During this time’(= ‘early in the uprising’), Assad released prisoners, former criminals;
3. these released prisoners would go on to lead ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, etc..

Claim (1) is incorrect: Assad certainly mentioned conspirators and foreign powers but not ‘terrorist conspiracy’. Claims (2) and (3) come from mr. Bassam Barabandi, who has served between approximately 2007 and unknown date as a Syrian diplomate, perhaps also on Embassy of Syria, Washington, D.C., and in July 2014 shared “his thoughts” and “insights” with US officials and a website called Atlantic Council in this article. My problem is:

• How serious or how reliable do we want to assess those so-called ‘thoughts’ or ‘insights’ of Barabandi, saying that “criminals” released in March–April 2011 went on as leaders of ISIL and Jabhat?
• Assuming we consider those ‘insights’/’thoughts’/presumptions of Barabandi to some extend reliable or relevant for us (which has not yet shown, but will either show from this discussion, or be rejected in this discussion), where in this or another Wiki-article would be the best place to put it? Claim (3) certainly does not belong in section 2.1, because Barabandi does not say those presumed released criminals led ISIL or Jabhat before 30 July 2011. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Whoever was released by Assad back then, Caliph al Baghdadi himself was released by the US in Iraq, as were many other ISIS leaders to be, from Gantanamo. The "Assad controls ISIS conspiracy" is just that, a retarded conspiracy theory, which should not be presented here. FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I take it, you mean to say, we should not present above mentioned alleged 'facts' (2) and (3) in Wikipedia. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. I've just removed those 'thoughts' etc. of Barabandi from Syrian Civil War#Protests, civil uprising, and defections (January 2011 – July 2011). --Corriebertus (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Israel again

This source clearly says that Israel has been arming opposition since they wrestled control over the border areas from the govt army. Before I add Israel to the supporters section in the infobox, I'd like to ask how big flame war will I cause over here? --Emesik (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I support your action, because it appears to be based on facts. DylanLacey (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I assume, you mean: ‘Belligerents—Opposition(column)’ in the infobox. I cannot yet judge whether that claim is correct. But if you people decide that Israel has to be considered a belligerent opposition party, please first enlist them as such in our section 4.2, ‘Belligerents—Opposition parties’. Maps and infoboxes are illustrations of what the text of our articles describe in their sections and should not live lives on their own, independently or separately from the main text in the sections.[See also my posting 19 Oct.] --Corriebertus (talk) 11:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Israel should be listed as a supporter, not a full belligerent, and if you add them source the heck out of the addition. Legacypac (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. I believe—perhaps this is also what Legacypac means to say—that ‘belligerent’ in this article means, or must mean: actively taking part in acts of war (which no one suggests Israel to have already done). Just supporting some warring party, for example by arming them, would belong in section Syrian Civil War#Foreign involvement. That section directs to the main article Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War, that indeed already has a section for: Israel supporting the opposition (which, by the way, looks horrible, and could use some clean-up and updating, etc.). Just add there whatever you’d want to add. So, in short: no reason yet to add Israel as belligerent in this article. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Israel is a clear supporter of the opposition. Unlike their other supporters, they have even acted with force against Assad. And I'm not sure what Corriebertus is on about, there is place for supporters in the infobox, and that's where Israel should be. FunkMonk (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm stupid, but I don't see a part called "supporters" in the infobox--where do you see that? Nobody denies Israel to support opposition but I (and others) have explained that that doesn't seem to make Israel a belligerent (= warring party). If Israel "acted with force against Assad" as Funk claims, the situation changes. So, please be more specific on that allegation. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There is an "armed by" section, which used to0 be called "supported by". Israel fits in both, as they provide arms, apparently. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I just found out also myself. I'm however not (yet) in favor of adding Israel to that list of "armed by", because: firstly: website Business Insider (read also their own page: Business Insider, ‘about us’) is probably obscure to the general public. Secondly: I’ve read most of that article now, about Israel’s possible or alleged meddling in the Syrian War etc., written by a Mr. Ehud Yaari, and it strikes me that he mentions no source at all for all his 'knowledge' and assumptions. That is unusual in (high) quality journalism and in scholarly publications, and makes for me personally that article and all its alleged ‘facts’, on that probably rather obscure website, unreliable. --Corriebertus (talk) 17:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call that site "obscure", but yeah, independent verification would be nice. FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

- don't let funkmunkandemesicks obsessions with israel tilt the article into the domain of press Tv and RT and globalresearch territory for portrayal of the conflict -

Netanyahu's obsession with Iran and Syria is doing that just fine by itself. FunkMonk (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

'Daniel Levy director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR).

"Israel is trying not to have to prioritise which threat takes primacy over the other in the region in general. There’s Iran, the Palestinians, Hamas, the Iranian axis, ISIS and other extreme groups in Sinai and the Golan – one of these groups may assume the most attention at any given moment," he added.

According to DW News, Israel has hinted it is coordinating directly with Assad's forces but has avoided saying it outright. Marom suggested Israel had been working with the Syrian regime to coordinate air strikes on Quneitra, the newspaper said.

Senior fellow in the Program on Arab Politics at The Washington Institute, Andrew Tabler believes that although "Israel does not want the Assad regime to tactically win, along its frontier it [Israel] prefers [or] knows the Assad regime.” - See more at: middleesasteye Sayerslle (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry gentlemen--are we still seriously discussing something here? I don't get that impression. Lastly, Sayerslle quoted some speech of some mr Levy, but what consequences must that all have for our article, mr Say? --Corriebertus (talk) 16:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Very long

I moved this cleanup template here because it is prominent and distracting without being effective. The article has had more than three million page views in the year that this cleanup template has been up. For scale, that's like the entire population of Uruguay. --Ori.livneh (talk) 06:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Islamic Front, where does it fit in?

In the article, Islamic Front falls under the green white black three red stars flag. I have never seen Islamic Front use this flag. Islamic Front is a jihadist group. In my opinion, Islamic Front and FSA should belong to separate columns in the infobox.

Why, if they are not fighting each other? FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that?

Because it isn't reported? FunkMonk (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Islamic Front and FSA have totally different ideologies. One wants to establish an Islamic state. The other wants to establish a democracy. There is bounded to be a clash soon.

Al Qaeda linked Nusra Front attacked FSA. It should be another belligerent.

http://www.dailysabah.com/mideast/2014/11/03/nusra-attacks-fsa-captures-town-in-idlib

Looks like Nusra needs its own color on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

See section above. Also, Nusra attacked FSA for the first time years ago, nothing new. It could perhaps be moved to the ISIS column. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There's also been alot of collaboration lately between the moderate rebels and the Kurds. Maybe they could be put in the same column. Charles Essie (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It's all one big mess really. Nusra is attacking FSA linked rebels in Idlib, while fighting alongside them in Aleppo and Deraa. Nusra and IS are fighting against each other in Deir ez Zor and alongside each other in Qalamun. The Kurds are cooperating with Assad in Hasakah, and with the FSA in Kobane. Gazkthul (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• To complicate it further, the "coalition" has striked Nusra again and also Ahrar al Sham. http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/154170-u-s-led-air-strikes-hit-qaida-branch-in-syria FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Nursa does also seem to have a truce with ISIL. I would suggest moving them to the same column as ISIL but with a dividing line between the two groups. 89.168.92.255 (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

al-Nusra has fought ISIL more extensively than the FSA, and al-Nusra retains allies in the main opposition but is not allies with ISIL at this point. A move would be very premature. DylanLacey (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Finally a graphic to guide us on the Syrian Civil War. Makes my head hurt, but a great guide on who is fighting or supporting who. Legacypac (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

A problem with the Infobox, concerning al-Nusra

[After a long discussion which led to some changes in the Infobox (see Talk:Syrian Civil War#Infobox very misleading), someone still saw a problem, this time concerning Al-Nusra. I take the liberty to replace that new discussion to this new section:]

One thing that didn't get settled is what to do with Nusra. Are they even fighting IS anymore? Also, interestingly, it seems some US analysts are defending Nusra. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/10/02/241894_us-anti-assad-rebels-in-syria.html?sp=/99/200/111/&rh=1 FunkMonk (talk) 09:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Also, quite an elephant in the room, why are there no list of supporters for IS? We know who they are, they just won't admit it. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

al-Nusra was fighting IS, but I heard they came to a truce. I'm no expert in this so I am going to have to look this up. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 05:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Everyone has fought everyone else at some point. What matters is what lasts. FunkMonk (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm no experts yet on this neither. If FunkMonk has information on supporters of IslamicState, I'd be grateful if he would take the trouble to indeed expose that elephant in the room. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The Saudis and Qataris admitted they provided funding. The Turks let them across the border. FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

We all know it's very likely to have happened. But are there so-called RS which dare to confirm that? Emesik (talk) 22:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The Saudi's are bankrolling the Islamic State's opponents in Syria, specifically the Syria Revolutionaries Front and Jaysh al-Islam. Gazkthul (talk) 08:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Al-Nusra attacked FSA units, cooperating with Islamic State. That's what the most recent news say. Emesik (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

AP also reports that IS and Nusra have agreed to stop fighting each other. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

{ http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/joshua-landis-robert-ford-discuss-syria-wilson-center-event/ This chart] shows Nusra in direct or indirect conflict with everyone but AQ Core. It shows no one supporting (even alleged) ISIL except maybe Assad. Legacypac (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

How to use 4 columns

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

Hmm. That seems to make sense. The PKK is designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government, but there have been no reports of airstrikes against the PKK, and the YPG says it is coordinating with the U.S.-led coalition: [11] [12] [13]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, for a start, this is from a month ago.[14] And look at the section above this one. Also, the FSA used the whole "Nusra is controlled by the regime" conspiracy theory back when they fought. How times have changed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I think the main opposition players, such as Nusra, Islamic Front and FSA, should be listed in the infobox. The opposition column is empty for no apparent reason, whereas for example the government one isn't. Also, I'm not sure if Turkey belongs in the coalition. So far, they have done nothing but killing Kurds.[15] FunkMonk (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed--for now. Since Al-Nusra is part of the opposition and Khorasan is part of Al-Nusra and the coalition has bombed Khorasan it makes no since for the coalition to be listed with the opposition. If at sometime in the future Nusra breaks away from the opposition (creating a five column nightmare) then that might result in shifting the coalition over. On a related note, I think there should be a line between Nusra and the rest of the opposition. Blurisnap (talk) 04:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.84.56 (talk)

Agree with the last post. Nusra might defect completely to ISIL from al-Qaida (many units have defected) but for now they are in Opposition, and the US-led group has not even started vetting the Opposition according to the US news. Nusra is in direct conflict with the FSA and should be seperated from the rest of the Opposition by a line, which I'll add. Legacypac (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Map of Current military situation in Syria

Current military situation in Syria.

  Controlled by the Syrian government

  Controlled by the Kurdish Self-Administration

  Controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

  Controlled by other rebels

-----------------------------------------------------------

  (under Israeli occupation)

Because of user Greyshark going around to a variety of articles and forcing his map/pov into articles through edit warring without gathering any consensus or support, I went back to one of the old discussions to take a look and noticed that at the bottom here:[16] that user Greyshark had said that "Oppose to suggestion - 5 users (Greyshark, Kudzu, FT, Spesh, Legacy)" But in the discussion we can see that FutureTrillionaire says: "IMO, the Golan Heights should be stripped, not colored. However, ultimately, it really doesn't make much of a difference.", which is not an oppose vote against Syrian civil war 2.png and its text "(Under Israeli occupation)" and user Kudzu says: "I don't agree with considering Israel a belligerent, if that's the proposal on the table. But I think it's appropriate to shade the map to indicate that Israel controls a part of what is de jure Syria." which is exactly what Syrian civil war 2.png and the text "(under Israeli occupation)" does.

We can also see that User Vanamonde93 said: "The map is supposed to accurately represent the military situation in Syria; ergo, any map which did not delineate Israeli held territory would be indulging in a factual inaccuracy. How the occupation is shown, I am not particular about; stripes, shades, stars, polka dots, not bothered. But presenting Israeli controlled territory as Syrian government controlled seems out of the question to me.", which is support for Syrian civil war 2.png. But Greyshark did not mention him at all in the "support votes". Therefore user Greyshark has severely misrepresented the outcome of the discussion and the support or neutral votes are even greater then what he claimed. And those who "opposed" is even smaller then he claimed. I'm seriously considering an enforcement request against user Greyshark if he continues with this behavior. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Arab Countries Deleted from Infobox

Another editor took the Arab Countries bombing ISIL out of the infobox wth "Simplifying; other coalition partners have not contributed nearly as much as the militant groups pro-gov and rebel that have been left out" I believe this is not an appropriate change to a widely agreed inclusion (never seen anyone question it till now) and have reverted the change. If there are other Govt or Opposition groups that should be included in the box, there is lots of space to include them. Legacypac (talk) 04:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

My point is that the Arab countries have contributed very little (in terms of airstrikes) to the Syrian Civil War as a whole, and thus they should not be included in the infobox, but a link provided to the intervention, so that others can see who is involved. Many other belligerents have been removed who actually fight on the ground, why should Arab countries who have contributed a couple of aircraft be included ahead of rebel groups with thousands of fighters? The Arab airstrikes have had very little impact on the conflict (the US has done the vast majority of the airstrikes), which is what the infobox should be a measure of, considering there is not enough room for every belligerent. DylanLacey (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

We have a 4 column bigger infobox. If you think someone should be added back, add them back. I've seen no data on the number of sorties broken down by country, but the direct entry into the conflict of 5 Arab nations is more significant geopolitically than ground based subgroups of the FSA. Also contributions are not limited to a couple of aircraft - its bases, money, military aid etc as well. Legacypac (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The airstrikes have had little impact on the situation on the ground, especially when you look at the civil war as a whole. The removed belligerents are not 'subgroups of the FSA' - they are independent of the FSA entirely, and to suggest they are is incorrect. Also, the Arab countries have contributed a maximum of 4 aircraft each. Compare that to other Kurdish fighter groups that have thousands of fighters on the ground, such as Jabhat al-Akrad, which actually impact the conflict. Having a link to the other contributors is better, as has been done with other non-main belligerents. DylanLacey (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleting all coalition partners leaving only the US in the infobox is outright jingoistic. I don't see how doing so improves the quality of this template, as they never occupied much space either. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Are they even bombing? It is possible they dropped a couple of bombs somewhere in the desert on the first day. AFAIK, they have never been heard from since the first day. Heck, the Gulf countries have a Salafist ideology, don't they? It is likely they do not want to bomb ISIS, but had to show up a little bit on the first day just to give the Americans face.

SOHR casualties reports 2/12/2014

The casualties are as follows:

Civilians: 63072 civilians, including 10377 children and 6603 women.

Rebel and Islamic fighters: 34838

Defected soldiers and officers: 2486

full report hereLindi29 (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Already updated it. EkoGraf (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Still Civil War ?

How is the conflict in Syria still a civil war ?

1. Involvement of foreign Jihadi fighters from all over the world. This is especially true for the IS.

2. Involvement of the United States and her allies. The US and her allies has been bombing the Islamic State part of Syria since 22 september.

3. Involvement of Israel. Israel has bombed the government forces of Syria so many times since the beginning of the conflict that I have lost count.

4. Involvement of the Hezbollah a foreign militia that has played a very crucial role on the government side.

5. Involvement of Iran in the conflict either indirectly or even directly on the side of the Syrian Government.

6. Involvement of the forces from Iraqi Kurdistan the Peshmerga's in the fighting between Syria's Kurds and the Islamic State.

7. Foreign countries in the region and beyond have been involved from the beginning in training, arming and funding the rebels in Syria.

8. And most importantly. The wars in Iraq and Syria has now become one single conflict.

More and more outside parties are getting involved into this conflict almost by the day!

Perhabs change the name of the article into the "Syrian War". Like the article the Bosnian War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.174.12 (talk) 16:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The Russian Civil War is similar in that it was very complicated and had much foreign involvement. It was still a civil war, as the thrust of the conflict was between government and rebels. Same applies with Syria. DylanLacey (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Its the common name per most reliable sources so that's what we call it (per WP policy). Also, the same thing DylanLacey said when explaining the example of the Russian Civil War. I can also give you another example the Lebanese Civil War. EkoGraf (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• Please don't start redundant discussion, this has already been discussed at length here.[17] Almost all civil wars in history had foreign involvement, it is not an argument. FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Syrian regime casualties - 16/12/2014

New reports.hereLindi29 (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The 'vast majority of the abuses having been committed by the Syrian government'?

Despite hard evidence, that the number bloodly killings by ISIS are growing, Wikipedia continues with the fiction that the Syrian government are mosty to blame for the outrages. For the Syrian Civil War section continues to paint the Syrian government in a very bad light. And, despite news of a changing picture of events within Syria, why does Wikipedia refuse to report this conflict in a fair and balanced way? When will you stop pushing what at times appears to be a US point of view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.187.159 (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that there is a US POV - the article barely deals with US actions or opinions. Wikipedia includes editors that push for balance and this article has a lot of input. What may have merit is the idea ISIL is catching up with Assuad in the atrocities count. Remember ISIL had a late start, in the Syrian Civil War but they seem to be trying hard to catch up. We will need so reliable sources saying ISIL has committed more war crimes to insert that, if true now. Legacypac (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Legacypac, good to know that we can use this talk page as a forum for opinions and complaints that doesn't help to improve the content of article at all. Coltsfan (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out if something is biased is helpful. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

In the “International reaction” section, Wikipedia has a picture of Esther Brimmer (U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs) addressing a Human Rights Council Debate on Syria 28, February 2012. And yet, to better reflect a range of International Reactions, might not Wikipedia consider deleting reference to Esther Brimmer?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.219.89 (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

An apparent POV request... Legacypac (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Since, pointing out if something is biased is helpful, is it not reasonable to ask whether the international reaction section should contained a section on, well - International Reactions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.213.110 (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Turkmen, killed in the civil war by ISID [18],Syrian Turkmen Brigades — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.178.58.11 (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda in Syria targets Turkmen minority [19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 08:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Map issue - blackened Syria

Until recently the file at commons:File:SyrianCivilWarMap.png showed Syria as red. This has now been changed to Black which is a Salafist, Islamist ISIL colour. I do not see this as a neutral presentation of colouration.

GregKaye ✍♪ 05:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and what is the point of that map anyway? Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the image change on commons. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - what is the point to show all Syria as "RED" or "BLACK", when "Syria" is partially red (Baathists), partially green (muslim brotherhood), partially black (Daesh), partially yellow-red-gree (Kurds) and partially another black (al-nusra)?GreyShark (dibra) 21:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Please also update the discription, which still says syria is black. Thanks in advance! Andylee Sato — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.59.178 (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

JAN numbers.

I dont know how could Al-nusra have maneged to inflict losses and gain terrain from the SAA and FSA with only 6,000 men. There is something extrange here. Their numbers are soo small for the terrain and gains made, allas of their big coverage in the news and presence in Idlib, Darra, Aleppo.200.48.214.19 (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Israeli support for Syrian rebels

Pretty much confirmed by now.[20][21] FunkMonk (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, how reliable is Christian Science Monitor? i did read the website and it seems to lack any kind of auditing and board procedures; the second one Haaretz is an Israeli mainstream paper and they do have a reliability pattern (editorial board). Both articles however cite the same - UN claims that Israel "has links" with Syrian rebels. This is not a secret that Israelis are providing humanitarian assistance to the residents of Quneitra and Daraa governorates, most of whom come from rebel-held areas and even rebels themselves. However, "contacts" between IDF officers and Syrian rebel groups and Israeli humanitarian assistance to general population is a little away from "support" (military support that is). There is not much exceptional here, which has not been yet discussed at Talk:Syrian_Civil_War/Israel.GreyShark (dibra) 16:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ehm, they are both just quoting the UN, so it doesn't matter what you think about CSmonitor or whatever outlet that choses to report this. Israel is supporting Syrian rebels, and have been doing it for quite a while. Regular meetings and treatment of wounded al Qaeda members is pretty much clear, friendly coordination, at the very least. In any case, both these reliable source use the word support, so you'd have to find some reliable sources that contradict their claims, since the personal opinions of us editors are pretty much worthless anyhow. The more worrying part is what we don't know they're helping them with. But I guess time will tell. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

CSMonitor is a well known and established news provider, for what it's worth. -Darouet (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Certainly notable enough for Wikipedia: The Christian Science Monitor Bad argument. FunkMonk (talk) 02:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, i said Ha'aretz is definitely reliable, but the reference didn't say anything on military support, but "links" and humanitarian assistance. That doesn't qualify as military support.GreyShark (dibra) 21:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

And I didn't mention military support. Though it would be naive to think they're not arming them as well, which we will probably learn over time. So no, not fit for the infobox yet, but certainly in an article somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 08:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If not military support, so we agree - it doesn't belong to the infobox. The rest can be explained in Humanitarian aid in the Syrian Civil War.GreyShark (dibra) 07:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Lol. That would be called "aiding terrorists" if it was done to Hamas fighters or some such. Even Gazan children wouldn't get that kind of treatment during war time. A documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G785kB8OKcU Note that pro-Israelis in the comment section also call it "humanitarian", I guess that's the semi-official spin/euphemism for "patch them up so they can go back and kill more Arabs for us". FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

To Legacypac

This map: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASyrian_Civil_War_infobox&diff=639084171&oldid=639083029#mediaviewer/File:Syrian_civil_war.png already has color for the Israeli-occupied portion of the Golan Heights. So I did not "reinsert Israel into a conflict they are not part of" The map already shows Israel is occupying GH. I only fixed the text under it describing the map. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Stop your POV edit warring Supreme Deliciousness. Your efforts across a broad range of pages to highlight Israel in the Syrian Civil War have been rejected repeatedly. Also don't post section headings naming me - that is inappropriate. Legacypac (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't highlighted Israel. The image YOU WANT and that is already in the template shows a striped color for the Israeli-occupied Golan heights. Why cant the description accurately say what the striped color is? Also now it says "disputed"... is it disputed who is occupying the Golan heights? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The edit added Israel as one of the combatants in the Syrian Civil War. Not helpful. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

So are you saying that this map:[22] does not show that Golan is occupied? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Supreme, if you don't stop, you might be sanctioned.GreyShark (dibra) 07:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Adding Israel to the infobox by the map is exactly like adding Israel elsewhere as a combatant. See this discussion and consider that you may be blocked it you add Israel again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive215#User:DIREKTOR_reported_by_User:FutureTrillionaire_.28Result:_See_below.29 Legacypac (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

A critical in Infobox

This edition brought Israel out of Infobox. As it has already been discussed here, I want to start a new discussion on the subject to detect the validity of this issue and if the user can be punished (not, User:FunkMonk?) 201.17.211.239 (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

See above - you can be blocked for this. Israel is not a combatant. Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Abu Omar al-Shishani

Why is Abu Omar al-Shishani listed as killed in action here but not in his biography page? Did multiple sources confirm that the guy is actually dead? Coltsfan (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

al-Shishani is not dead, though reported as such many times before.http://www.rferl.org/content/islamic-state-why-kadyrov-claims-shishani-killed/26692100.html Legacypac (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Who controls how much

Interesting clarification: http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/year-end-predictions-analysis-joshua-landis-28-december-2014/ "The Assad government rules 45% of the land and perhaps 65% of the population, give or take. ISIS rules 35%, but controls less than 3 million people. Kurds may control about 8% or 9% of Syria and Nusra another 5%. This leaves the hundreds of additional militias controlling the remaining 5%" FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Islamic Front and FSA fight each other

http://news.antiwar.com/2015/01/04/islamic-front-rebels-seize-damascus-suburb-from-moderate-rivals/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 20:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for posting. That site is not a RS we should include in the article though. Legacypac (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

At this point, which "rebel" groups haven't fought each other? Not sure why this is anything special. FSA was attacked by everyone before ISIS even entered Syria, which is conveniently forgotten today. FunkMonk (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of the groups have likely fought versions of themselves, and fighters switch sides regularly. Why can't they just all get along? Legacypac (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

They have different sponsors with diferent interest.200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move for page 'Syrian Kurdistan' to 'Rojava', 18 January 2015

Hi!

I'm inviting editors to participate in the discussion to move the article 'Syrian Kurdistan' to 'Rojava'. My rationale is: This article is about a region governed by the PYD, which calls the area Rojava. Foreign press also uses this term, for example [23] (BBC) [24] (Guardian) [25] (Independent) [26] (VICE). Other examples on Wikipedia such as Kosovo (not South Serbia), Catalonia (not Catalonian Spain) or Scotland (not Scottish United Kingdom) indicate this article should be called Rojava as per convention. Thanks Genjix (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Turkish intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant

Would someone kindly take part in the discussion here regarding whether the existence of Turkish intervention against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant as a stand-alone article or its title are accurate or not. Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ridiculous title. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article attributing the cause of the war to global warming-related drought

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/syria-s-civil-war-linked-partly-to-drought-global-warming-study-1.2260537 NorthernThunder (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggest semi-protection

I just fixed an incident of vandalism on this page, (see article history, approximately 5:50 PM PDT 3/15/15), so I would suggest some form of protection. As the subject of this article is deeply embedded in international politics and world religion, it will be a prime target for such defacing in the future.76.167.74.107 (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Map archive?

Is there something like an archive of all the maps that have been used here to illustrate the military situation? Would like to make an animation showing the military development from the start of the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.82.186 (talk) 09:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There is. This has kind of been done before however. Histories of Syrian Map, Iraq map and Combined map. Try not to include any versions that were reverted if you're trying to be accurate. Banak (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No updates since October 2014?

I noticed, that this article doesnt have any info about event of Syrian Civil War since October 2014. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebell44 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Because most info is added to its sub--articles, and because few in the west care about this conflict anymore. FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably because most of the people "taking care of it" were the anti-Assad ones, as it is clear they've been pushing their POV in the article. Once ISIS and other parties involved showed their true colours, it became pointless to keep on editing it as a way to deceive the masses. For anyone who thinks I'm wrong, then tell me: Why isn't Israel included in the infobox despite all the evidence pointing to their involvement??? lol Eddivergent (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No updates because the news coverage is poor, and that happens for two reasons: (1) There are no foreign reporters in Syria after some of them had been executed by ISIS and (2) the west doesn't care anymore about Syria itself. Having acknowledged their inability to topple Assad they are just playing broader game trying to exhaust both ISIS and Iran at the cost of total demolition of the country. --Emesik (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Meh, we're getting decent coverage of it compared to Libya, Iraq and even Ukraine right now. Yemen seems to be the main focus atm, however, with people updating the map crazy often. The problem is we get reports that the Syrian Gov is deliberately targeting civilians (WW2 blitz style), and they deny it, similarly the use of chlorine. Other than territorial control, there is little change. Occasional defections and mergers of groups. Nothing really that can be reported other than fighting. Banak (talk) 03:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Another thing is that some of the main editors in previous years (Sopher99, Sayerslle‎) have been blocked for indecent behaviour. FunkMonk (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

On the map:

Does that Libya fall into the hands of Chechen or Islamic state or al Qaeda, it will map the conflict that will have to be renamed as the last Arab fitna? 191.185.204.11 (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Banak (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The question will be divided to facilitate:

1- If Chechens and the class of Al Qaeda or even the class of the Islamic state took power in Libya, will have to extend the conflict map?

2- In case of extension of the conflict map, we have to re-catalog the war with the nth fitna? 191.185.215.35 (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If you mean this map which isn't in the article then no, it is only of Iraq and Syria. This map here already documents ISIS's control in Libya. If you mean this map from the article then again, no. It only shows Syria. Banak (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Turks

Syrian Turks (Turks in Syria, Syrian Turkoman or Syrian Turkmen) (Turkish: Suriye Türkleri) are Syrian citizens of Turkish descent, who have been living in the Syrian provinces of the Ottoman Empire before its dissolution and continue to live in the modern country of syria

During the Syrian Civil War, the Turkmen population of Syria were mainly involved in military actions against the Syrian Government Forces and have looked at Turkey for support and protection.

Syrian Turks 750.000-1.500.000-3.500.000 populations [27]

Syrian Turkmen Brigades [28],Syrian Turks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.110.159.169 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Usage of File:InfoboxHez.PNG image

I don't know the usual policy in Wikipedia-en, but I feel a bit strange to promote in a real article a fake image of a logo. What do you think about it. Loreleil (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Real logo is : File:Hezbollah_Flag.jpg which is "protected". Loreleil (talk) 06:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

New interview with Bashar al-Assad

An interview with Bashar al-Assad was published by Expressen, one of Sweden’s biggest newspapers, today. Should it be mention in the article? (After the 1 minute Swedish intro, the interview is in English.) Link to the interview Erlbaeko (talk) 08:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably more appropriate on his in his own article. FunkMonk (talk) 09:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

It is about the civil war, so I believe it is more natural to include her, but I don't know if it pases the notability test (time will show). Anyway, sometimes it is wise just to listen, and consider what he is saying. The second part of the interwiev can be found here. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)