Wikipedia

Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 45

< Talk:Syrian civil war
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Albrecht in topic China and North Korea
Archive 40 ← Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 → Archive 50

9 June

Latest comment: 6 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

I have deleted this paragraph, recently added. I think it is written in a very non-neutral and un-encyclopedic way, and it is sourced to a YouTube video. If people think this is worth including in the article, can they edit it better and paste back in:

As of 9 June 2017, the Russian Federation army, working alongside its Syrian ally, had seen relative success in reconciling opposing sides and had procured signed agreements with some 1,571 representatives of the inhabited areas in Syria, where they had agreed to cease from hostilities against the government of Syria under Bashar al-Assad, thereby restoring a semblance of law and order.Russia Insider: Military Briefing (Current Situation) Some 219 groups in Syria who had formerly been suspected of involvement in armed resistance had agreed to the terms of the ceasefire.Russia Insider: Military Briefing (Current Situation)

BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we can write:
"In an effort to restore law and order, the Russian Federation army claims to have 'signed agreements with some 1,571 representatives of the inhabited areas in Syria,' where they have agreed to cease all hostilities against the Syrian government. [source] In addition, some 219 groups in Syria who had formerly been suspected of involvement in armed resistance have agreed to the terms of a ceasefire. [source]."
As for the YouTube.com source, it depends on the YouTube. In this case, it interjects no personal bias, but is simply a Russian military briefing. If you have doubts about it being a WP:RS, you can always ask the opinion of an administrator.Davidbena (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that looks massively better. I would make it clear who it was that suspected this involvement in armed resistance as well. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
  Done
  • Davidbena, this is an overview article of a protracted conflict. You put some statistics from the 9 June briefing by the Russian defence ministry, whereas the latest on the subject i have only just read on syria.mil.ru is dated 24 June. So what? These "reconciliation agreements" are red herrings: first, it is just not clear what they really mean; but obviously, they are not agreements between opposing sides of the conflict. Read carefully who are the parties to those.Axxxion (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
So, Axxxion, how would you suggest rewording this paragraph so as to comply with your view of noteworthy and up-to-date reporting of this conflict, especially as it pertains to peace efforts? Of course, if the statement should be corrected to make note of the fact that these agreements were made between parties who were not directly involved in armed conflict, you can stress this fact. The first clause, I thought, had accurately made that distinction. BTW: After several trials and errors (re-edits), there is now a consensus to add this important anecdote.Davidbena (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
There have been several editors′ reverts of this, which clearly indicates there is no consensus about this passage. As far as I am concerned, my main objection is that the matter is not investigated (journalistaically at least) and unclear: there have to be serious analytical texts to elucidate what these "reconciliation agreements" are in the real world, outside the online texts posted by the Russian Defence ministry. Axxxion (talk) 00:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Reverts with given reasons in the "edit summary" that have since been corrected cannot be considered a consensus. As for your view that the information provided by the source is too vague, why would you rule-out looking at online texts posted by the Russian Defence ministry to help you further understand what is meant by "reconciliation agreements"? Since Russia is a key-player in its sphere of influence in Syria, and since the same information that you seek can hardly be had elsewhere, why would you limit your "investigative" source? It makes little sense to me, although I admit that I am no expert. The military briefing by the Russian side seems, in my humble opinion, to bring some balance to this article.Davidbena (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
User:Axxxion, this is for your information. Upon reexamining the video with the Russian military briefing and its mention of the "Russian Center for reconciliation of opposing sides," I was able to do a Google search on this organization, and it just so happens that there is an article about its operations in Syria, on the Russian-language Wikipedia. See Center for Reconciliation of the warring parties in Syria. The page also provides you with an automatic translation, if you cannot read Russian. There, it says explicitly: "According Konashenkova, the main goals of the center is to actively promote the negotiation process of reconciliation between the legitimate Syrian government and the rebel opposition. Also, one of the key objectives of the Center is to organize the delivery of humanitarian assistance to civilians... One of the main problems - the conclusion of agreements on joining illegal armed groups and individual settlements to the cessation of hostilities in Syria. At the beginning of 2017 the number of localities that have joined the reconciliation process was more than 1,100." In the video it notes that, as of 9 June 2017, "Reconciliation agreements [were] signed with representatives of 1571 human settlements"---Davidbena (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with Axxxion. I think the notability for inclusion in the main article on the war is not clear, especially as there are more specific articles on e.g. peace efforts, and relying on primary sources in this way might be original research. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I respect your opinion. Has our fellow co-editor, Axxxion, changed his mind after my brief explanation? I realize that this page is only a general overview of the Syrian Civil war, but then again, there is a section entitled "Peace efforts," and two lines mentioning the Russian efforts in this regard might not hurt the article. What do you think? Using a Primary source presents no difficulty, as per WP:Primary sources.Davidbena (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Definitely I have not, as far as this article is concerned, for that matter. The Russ defence ministry updates this info on a daily basis: latest as of now: [1]. The very fact that such centre exists is notable, in my view, and probably there has to be a section about it in Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War: there is probably a mention of it in there, but i cannot see for now. We have to keep this article lean, otherwise it will spin out of control.Axxxion (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
This may be an apt place for this type of info: Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War#Russian peace initiatives and efforts.Axxxion (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Axxxion, would you agree that we seek a larger consensus, say, by referring this question to WP:RfC?---Davidbena (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Permission to Edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I would just like to add some counterarguments, like how there are doubts among the informed about calling the war a genuine civil war, being that it's all foreign intervention that started and continued it to this point.

John Kerry mentioned on Capitol Hill years ago that Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf allies offered to pay the US to help them with a war in Syria.

Two Turkish MPs confirmed famed investigative journalist Seymour Hersh's findings that President Erdogan of Turkey gave the chemical weapons to "rebels" to use in Syria back in 2013, which proves that the chemical weapons attack was not Assad's doing, and one of those MPs was charged with treason for what he said. counterpunch.org/2015/10/23/hersh-vindicated-turkish-whistleblowers-corroborate-story-on-false-flag-sarin-attack-in-syria/

Seymour Hersh recently published an article about how US intelligence was aware that Assad did not want to commit political suicide by dropping sarin gas on his civilians, rather that it was just a terrorist safe house that was precisely bombed, that had a lot of fertilizer in the basement with deadly chemicals to be used in weapons, but President Donald Trump of the United States ignored their repeated warnings.

There was also some issues with the UK ex-military created "White Helmets", being that they are supposed to be neutral, but are commonly seen standing near dead Syrian Arab Army bodies, and have handled apparent recent sarin gas victims back in April of 2017, with little protection, and they should have had adverse reactions within ten seconds of coming into contact with an area touched by sarin gas.

In addition to that, suspended for kidnapping UK doctor Shajul Islam, was on Twitter apparently taking care of these sarin gas victims while tweeting a lot, and offering live video chats for anyone with questions. People question where he found the time to do all of those things while supposedly trying to save the lives of these victims.

Witnesses in the area said that the trucks in the coverage of the Khan Sheikhoun attack were the same trucks al-Qaeda affiliates used to kidnap locals, and those bodies in the coverage look familiar to them.

Journalist Eva Bartlett, who unlike Amnesty International and the Coventry, UK based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, was actually in Syria, and acquired a first-hand account of what was going on, said that most people in Aleppo she asked didn't know who the White Helmets were, and they claimed that they were helping all over Aleppo.

I think these things are important to add, especially to counter the devil's advocacy that has already been presented on the article for a long time now. PKDL (talk) 01:39, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@PKDL: Thank you for your interest in contributing to Wikipedia! Unfortunately, that exception cannot be granted for you because that action is not possible. However, I can take this as a request for an edit on this page and help you add any new information you have that is properly and reliably sourced. If you can provide me with credible sources to the information you have written, I will be happy to verify it.
Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum or a place for argumentative discussion; the reason this page has been semi-protected is to avoid disputes between editors and edit warring. Because the information you have provided will most likely be controversial, a consensus must be reached by the community before any of it can be added, even if your source(s) are verified.
All the best, – GeneralAdmiralAladeen (Têkilî min) 03:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Turkmens can be showed as an entity like YPG and YPJ on infobox

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

With the recent advancements on Turkish border (liberation of 20 Turkmen villages and Çobanbey town and border crossing) and in Aleppo (gaining of a vicinity from YPG) by Syrian Turkmen Brigades of the Syrian Turkmen Assembly (part of Syrian Opposition), I think Syrian Turkmen Brigades can be showed on the infobox. Sputnik, Anadolu Agency, Haber7, Al Jazeera

Turkmens, Syrian Turkmen Assembly and Syrian Turkmen Brigades "must" be mentioned in the Syrian Opposition part since they are currently the driving opposition force in North Aleppo and center of the Turkey's Syria policy. - Berkaysnklf (talk) 7 April 2016, 18:12 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.75.198.117 (talk)

I concur. The Syrian Turkmen Brigades should be included on the infobox. Nuke (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Other than the Southern Front which is the largest coalition within the FSA, not a single union within the FSA is listed in the infobox. Listing them will take too much space and if the Turkmen Brigades are included, people will also want other FSA unions such as the Free Idlib Army in it. The Syrian Turkmen Brigades isn't an actual unified group but a loose union, unlike the other two coalitions I mentioned. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Text under the Victims of the Ghouta chemical attack photo is incorrect

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Under the photograph it says "Victims of the Ghouta chemical attack carried out by government forces".

Who was the perpetrator of the chemical attack is unclear and is widely disputed: Ghouta chemical attack

The Final UN Mission report about the event also does not determine the perpetrator of the attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.125.151 (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Eages of the Whirlwind

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It's the militia of the Syrian Social National Party, a Ba'ath ally/client party. The militia has about 6,000 to 8,000 troops https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/28/the-eagles-of-the-whirlwind/ and is increasing in importance as the Syrian government needs to draw the countries Christians into the armed forces. Eagles of the Whirlwind. Should be listed as a major Pro-SAA belligerent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.206.228 (talk) 05:20, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Eagles of the Whirlwind logo.jpg File:Flag of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party.svg— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martan32 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War

Latest comment: 6 years ago27 comments10 people in discussion

This article nowhere mentions that Israel has been supporting the Syrian opposition for years; with cash, humanitarian assistance, food deliveries and occasional military actions. The Wall Street Journal wrote about that in a lengthy and detailed article circa 2 weeks ago > [2]. Also, ISIS apologized to Israel for "mistaken" attack and vowed to never attack again > [3][4].

I agree it even needs to be listed in the infobox as a belligerent, but some editors think they have found a loophole by claiming Israel is not actually participating in this war, and that their clashes are part of some separate conflict only between Israel and the Syrian government/Hezbollah. Which is reaching quite a bit, especially given the direct help for the rebels and coordination. FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
My understanding of the situation is that Israel is for anyone (Russian, American, or otherwise) who is fighting against the extremists, ISIS. Since Israel is not directly involved in this conflict, there is no reason to mention Israel, especially when those presenting Israel's case are often biased.Davidbena (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Israel doesn't give a damn about ISIS, it isn't a threat to them. The Israeli Defence minister has said "In Syria, if the choice is between Iran and the Islamic State, I choose the Islamic State".[5] They're only afraid of Iran and Hezbollah, that's why they support Syrian rebels and bomb the government side again and again. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Little do you know. I live in Israel, and there is nothing that concerns us more than Arab extremism/terrorism. Of course, Syria (an arch-rival and enemy of the Jewish State) has not, in recent history, instigated any wars against Israel, and now that they're pinned-down in this ongoing conflict, we can expect the situation to remain so for a long time to come. Of course, if given the choice between a war with Iran and a war with ISIS, ISIS would be the easier of the two. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't matter what you or I think we know when the Israeli defence minister himself states he prefers ISIS over Iran and Hezbollah. And it doesn't change the fact that Israel is helping the very Islamic extremists in Syria that they are apparently so "concerned" about.[6][7] FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Your Wall Street Journal reports that Israel has been, for years, carving out a buffer zone populated by friendly forces. So what's wrong with giving food, fuel and medical supplies to people on the border? Do you really believe this is tantamount to waging a war against the Syrian nation? You see, you've taken this editorial just a little bit too far. Of course, if Israel should feel threatened or is attacked, Israel will defend itself.Davidbena (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
It means Israel is both arming a side of the conflict and attacking the forces that side is fighting. That makes it a part of the conflict. FunkMonk (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Israel never attacks an enemy, unless it first feels threatened or else it is being attacked. This does not make Israel a party in the current conflict (Civil War), but rather, Israel is doing what she has always done.Davidbena (talk) 20:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like special pleading. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
History speaks for itself. Besides, you have no consensus, not to mention any "reliable sources," to add here that Israel is a party to the current conflict.Davidbena (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I showed you reliable sources that state Israel provides weapons and money to Syrian rebel groups while attacking the Syrian government. What else does it take to be part of a conflict? FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
You showed a source that equates Israel's defense posture (when threatened) with actual military involvement in the current conflict. By the dupes of words artfully framed, that article seeks to mislead the simple-minded and naive.Davidbena (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, can you then explain what action would make Israel part of the conflict in your view? Or is Israel just never able to do wrong? FunkMonk (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree that Israel does not really (in earnest) view ISIL as a threat, as they know very well who is behind it. Besides, we have already a perfectly islamic state, whose judicial practice is virtually the same as Daesh; that state has just bribed Us gov with a few $ hundred billion to keep every one involved happy... But that is indeed beside the point here, as FunkMonk has pointed up. The issue of how Israel should be treated for the purposes of this article is worth attention, as well as the US, BTW. I already sectioned out the US as a ″belligerent″, but not in the infobox -- am just a bit coy about editing these juggernauts. I think, we ought to look at things in the broad scheme of things, encyclopedically, to coin a phrase. Amnot an expert, but the basics, I suppose, are these: Syria and Israel have always been and are at war (Israel–Syria relations), in a legal/technical sense, in terms of international law, that is. Thus, Israel is indeed a belligerent in that sense. The question is whether this fact is relevant to the subject this article is about. If attacks continue and we have some formal statements on that from Israel, I think we need to adjust accordingly.Axxxion (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I think this charade has gone on long enough. Even the Wall Street Journal is now reporting on lethal Israeli aid for five rebel groups, a few of them associated for the Free Syrian Army. I've added the info to the infobox. It's absolutely ridiculous to take the position that the Israeli support is somehow part of a "separate conflict" with some Syrian government-allied forces that's completely unrelated to the Syrian Civil War. Esn (talk) 01:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, it is getting ridiculous indeed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Besides, i created a new section in Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War#Israel, on the basis of what has been provided by colleagues here. Please contribute.Axxxion (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Nice, also needs mention of the continuous bombing of government forces. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The WSJ report (who got its info from the rebels) is probably reliable. Syrians probably have an unfavorable view of Israel, so the Syrian rebels would not say that they are receiving help from Israel unless it's true.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The WSJ report doesn't indicate lethal support provided by Israel, but rather emphasizes provision of food, medicine, cash and fuel - all not lethal, but rather humanitarian assistance items. There is no "big news" here - Israelis provide humanitarian support for several years into rebel held areas, as many other countries. This is not belligerency.GreyShark (dibra) 13:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand including Israel as an entity in the Civil War but I think claiming it as supporting the rebels is a bit misleading. It is clear that Israel is against the Syrian regime and has launched airstrikes against it but they have not done so in support of the Free Syrian Army or any other rebel group. They should at most be included as a co-belligerent of the rebels.72.90.157.229 (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Someone completly removed Israel from the infobox despite the facts and sourced material. Clearly some people have an agenda to "prove" 'that Israel does nothing in Syria, whilst the country clearly supports the rebels and attacks military targets assosictaed with the legitimate Syrian government and its allies. Israel provides cash, aid, fuel, treats wounded rebels in hospitals, and attacks Syrian tanks/ armored vehicles whenever there's government offensive near the internationally recognized occupied Syrian Golan Heights. Israel does have a business in Syria and it does support the rebels associated with the FSA. IDF also crossed border with Syria on multiple occasions. Lie as much as you want, but nobody can deny the facts that Israel is an active participant in the conflict acting against the government in Damascus. If Israel is not a belligerent, then Iran isn't either. Iranian focres are not in Syria and there is no military support for either side. Period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.72.109 (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment - recent assessment of Israeli humanitarian aid for Syrians can be found at Myths and misconceptions about Israel and Syrian rebels on the Golan. The researcher al-Tamimi clearly indicates that the "aid" to Syrian rebels includes sctricly humanitarian items, with diesel fuel used to power water pumps.GreyShark (dibra) 07:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment This is getting beyond ridiculous. The Israeli flag is not mentioned among the involved nations, while the flags of Netherland or Norway is? ROTFL! Huldra (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Mossad is clearly trying to prevent wikipedia from adding their country to the war template for the Syrian Civil War on the FSA rebel side. AHC300 (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Hilarious!GreyShark (dibra) 16:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

North Korea military involvement

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

In 2016, there were reports that DPRK troops were fighting to defend the Syrian government in the Syrian Civil War. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/03/25/are-north-koreans-fighting-in-syria-its-not-as-far-fetched-as-it-sounds/?utm_term=.c6de84dac035 AHC300 (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The source doesn't indicate Korean involvement, but rather offers a theory. This is not WP:NOTABLE.GreyShark (dibra) 16:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
And of course this is WP:RSOPINION, not a fact.GreyShark (dibra) 06:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Sunni factor

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Practically from the very beginning this article (and countless others on English Wikipedia) states that the war in Syria is between the Sunni majority and the Alawite minority government. But this notion is very misleading due to the complex structure of relations within the country itself. Assad does enjoy wide support among many of the Sunni Syrians. Chris Zambelis writing in 2015 for the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point analysed the topic here > [8], for example, he concludes that Sunni Syrians are ,,well represented" in the National Defence Forces (Syria), and that ,,estimates indicate that Sunnis account for between 60 and 65 percent of the regular army." He also mentions that Shabiha was composed of many Sunnis. Another source, namely Thanassis Cambanis writing in 2015 for Foreign Policy touched upon that too > [9]. Edward Dark writing in 2014 for Al-Monitor pointed out that it was the pro-government Sunnis in Aleppo that stopped the rebel offensive, which caused the city not to be overrun [10]. The Times of Israel reported in June 2014 that individuals interviewed in a "Sunni-dominated, middle-class neighborhood of central Damascus" claimed wide support for Assad [11]. Various Sunnis in position of power, also remained loyal to the government, for example; Wael Nader al-Halqi, Fahd Jassem al-Freij, Walid Muallem, Mohammad al-Shaar, Asma al-Assad and many others. Organizations that rely heavly on Sunnis are, for example; Ba'ath Brigades, Liwa al-Quds, NDF, Shabiha, Syrian Arab Army (for example, the 4th Mechanized Division is entirely composed and led by Sunnis [12]). Chris Zambelis himself pointed out that the alleged secterian nature of the Syrian conflict largely remains thanks to the salafis and their propaganda. I think that this article should be rewritten to include non-bias narrative free of personal agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.72.109 (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality of introductory section?

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm questioning the quote:

"The unrest in Syria, part of a wider wave of 2011 Arab Spring protests, grew out of discontent with the Assad government and escalated to an armed conflict after protests calling for his removal were violently suppressed."

This is a single perspective interpretation of the course of events in the Syrian war, and it is presented as absolute, immutable fact. The cited source of the quote cherry-picks facts and events to present, with no consideration of other issues - like outside-state sponsored terrorism (which, coincidentally, is quite similar to what's happening in the United States right now as concerns Antifa) as causative factors.

I'm not against this statement being true, if that were the case, but I believe it is insufficiently established as firm fact and should not be presented as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.235.243 (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Rv, why

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

How is a book review rs for such contentious claims? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The source above is not a "book review," just as Seymour Hersh's account of "The Killing of Osama bin Laden," also in the London Review of Books, is not a book review. The reliability of the London Review of Books is not seriously open to question (ask WP:RSN if you disagree), and, for whatever it's worth, Flynn has publicly expressed many of the same sentiments he did when interviewed by Hersh. In addition, Hersh's central claims have all been corroborated by other media reports (e.g., [13]) and declassified U.S. government documents (e.g., [14]). This long-standing content was deleted by an IP with no discussion on the talk page, and I would like to see a better rationale for deletion than dismissing Hersh as a mere "book reviewer."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Don't be fooled by the name - London Review of Books is not (only) a book review. It is a publication that only runs in-depth essays. Seymour Hersh specifically is a highly noted journalist, specifically in LRB he is noted for [15]. Investigative journalism is dying in many places, this is not one of them (as long as it is running).Icewhiz (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Review, or essay, that source cannot be used for statements of fact as it currently is. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Of course it can; you can go to WP:RSN if you disagree, or you should self-revert. The LRB is in fact one of the very best sources that could be cited in this article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Belligerents and Foreign involvement sections

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Do we really need a section for foreign involvement when a lot of the foreign parties are already described in the Belligerents section (e.g. Russia, Iran, US-led coalition)? I think the Foreign Involvement section should be merged into the Belligerents section.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree - let's make foreign involvement into sub-topic of the belligerents section and tweak it down to minimum.GreyShark (dibra) 13:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  DoneGreyShark (dibra) 17:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC

Latest comment: 6 years ago38 comments14 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus to oppose the proposal.The oppose votes and esp. the counter-arguments seems to be more rationale-based than the arguments from the other side.Godric on Leave (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Should the Israeli flag be included in the Main belligerent section? Huldra (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Include the Israeli flag, Huldra (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Isreal is not a belligerent. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. At the current, published, involvement level it is just the "usual" meddling/play that occurs between wars. Israel is definitely less involved than Turkey - even pre 2016 Turkey (Turkey more or less from the get go was heavily supporting Turkmen and Islamist forces, including movement and supply on Turkish soil). The current involvement level may barely be classified as support. This may change very quickly, but it has not yet. It is also less involved in supply than Saudi and Qatari material support for the Sunni forces, and they are not listed.Icewhiz (talk) 04:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose.this gets brought up every few months, it gets rejected and nothing has changed. Israel treats wounded fighters and as per their standard operating procedure long before the SCW bombs weapons headed to Lebenon they spot in Syria. None of that makes them a belligerent in the syrian civil war. Legacypac (talk) 09:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Israel is not a belligerent in the current Syrian Civil war.Davidbena (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Israel supports Syrian rebels financially and medically while attacking pro-government forces every other week, these are indisputable facts. But it may be a good idea to wait for opinions for editors who are not either Israeli or Arabs (uninvolved). The votes so far are pretty predictable. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
    Support is different than direct involvement. Declared support is medical, RS speculation (probably true) is logistics, intel, and some material. However material support by other actors in the region has been much more significant. Fire is also far from every other week (during major rebel offensives - perhaps - for most of the past 2 years - no). The major Israeli air-force / long-range rocket attacks - are less than 10 throughout the entire conflict - and are supposedly limited to Hezbollah conveys carrying advanced arms to Lebanon. Beyond that - it is sporadic low-intensity fire - the Israeli military claims mortar/artillery rounds landed in Israel (and I will note that skeptic observers, in Israel as well, suspect some of these are fired "by request" by the Rebels into Israel to elicit a response - but it is confirmed by RS that at least several of these are true in the sense that rounds landed in Israel (who fired - more complex with the mess in Syria)) - and then fires back with artillery/rockets taking out 1-2 positions. This fire is limited to the area close border zone, and on a "hot" day is limited to a few events - and usually doesn't occur. To put things in perspective - in 2006 Lebanon War the IDF fired some 160,000 artillery rounds and 1,800 MLRS rounds. Throughout the entire 6 year Syrian civil war the IDF fired less than 100 short range rounds (some Spike (missile) NLOS, some others), and performed less than 10 long range strikes. I don't think this is an Israeli editor POV issue - it is really a question of what consists of involvement. The current level of fire - is one the level of low intensity border skirmishes - not even close to what the IDF would do if engaged "officially".Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned above - Israel has provided Humanitarian aid during the Syrian Civil War to areas on Syrian territories held by moderate rebel factions; this has included medicals, food, fuel (for water pumps). A recent overview of the situation on the Golan Heights is well described by this assessment of al-Tamimi.GreyShark (dibra) 16:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
FunkMonk's insinuation that my opinion should be disgarded is incorrect. I'm not Israeli or Arab and have never even visited either Syria or Israel. many countries have provided humanitarian aid to Syria, but we don't list them as belligerents. Israel is not shy about going to War. If they wanted to insert themselves in the SCW they would be kicking Syrian/ISIL or someone's ass. Legacypac (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Link 1 is a user generated place to collect links. Not a Reliable Source and proves nothing.
Link 2 is the WSJ article. Giving a big of cash to make friends with the armed men right across the border is just good sense.
Link 3 is an opinion piece that nicely lays out the facts but jumps to a POV conclusion. It also says China should be listed with Iran amd Russia.
Link 4 key sentence "Israel allegedly attacked the Syrian Arab Army after a shell landed in the occupied Golan Heights." ie Israel responded to an attack on land they have long controlled. Zero to do with SCW. Legacypac (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose (Summoned by bot)The level of involvment of Israel is not enough to get to belligerent status. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. The discussion is not related to the "Belligerents" graph immediately (I suppose), but to "support". Overwhelming verifiable evidence to justify inclusion of Israel. Also, as i have noted before, Israel is at war with Syria in the most formal legal sense since 1973, or even before.Axxxion (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Providing support does not a combatant make. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources for the Israeli involvement RfC

In order not to clutter the RfC, I will start adding sources here, which indicate the Israeli involvement. Please feel free to add other sources. Huldra (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Those sources are describing various levels of humanitarian aid. A better academic source for this is al-Tamimi.GreyShark (dibra) 18:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
"The groups use the cash to pay fighters and buy ammunition" (quote from the Independent article)...that is cash from Israel to rebel fighter groups. Just when did ammunition become "humanitarian aid"? Huldra (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
First off, these 2 sources (WSJ (and Independent's coverage of it) interviews with rebels, and JPOST UN's report (which really only brings up contacts and unspecified supplies) don't establish a fact - but speculate (well-founded speculation, and speculation I (and many others) believe - but still speculation)).... But more importantly - providing ammunition, intel, cash, material support, etc - does not make one into a a main belligerent. We more or less classify belligerents on Wikipedia (and elsewhere) - based on who is doing the shooting (and how much). A belligerent would have troops in the ground, air, or sea acting in a significant capacity - this is not what is alleged here. Even the supply alleged is fairly low (even though there is less well founded, but quite probable, speculation that it is greater than alleged (based on interviews) by WSJ - it still would be low). As you may see in Yom Kippur War (US and USSR not listed as belligerents - despite massive air-lifts supplying weapon systems and ammunition to Israel and Syria respectively). Using a true proxy force (and in this case - it seems more like liaising/supporting - but not actual control) - usually will not raise one to a belligerent. If you paint your own forces with other colors and give them other uniforms - and sent them in - e.g. Black September (Syrian troops as PLA) or Bay of Pigs Invasion (CIA, US Air force, etc. - which is more borderline in terms of classification) - then, if there is consensus that is the case (which often takes years to emerge - though if contested (as it was in War in Donbass) - it might be listed on-wiki as probable for quite some time) - then you'd be listed as a belligerent. In short - giving ammo, weapon systems, food, cash, etc. - does not raise one to belligerent status. If it did - we'd have to list a whole bunch of other states in the Syrian civil war and elsewhere.Icewhiz (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Huldra, the whole quote is "Israel may be funding up to four other rebel groups which have Western backing. The groups use the cash to pay fighters and buy ammunition.". So, maybe Israel is funding and maybe the rebels are using - those are clearly speculations per WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:RSOPINION (same arguments as alleged North Korean involvement in Syrian War). What we do know with higher level of certainty is that Israelis provide certain humanitarian supplies to specific "moderate rebel" groups and to the pro-Asad Druze village of al-Hader [20] (via Druze community of Western Golan) in order to relieve local populations and they do treat wounded Syrians. I do not see such actions to become "solid" argument for "Israeli involvement", though in case border incidents do intensify to a point that Israelis invade into Syrian territories (whether held by Ba'ath, rebels, Nusra or ISIL) - this would be a valid point.GreyShark (dibra) 06:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
GreyShark, why not cite the start of the independent article, which says "The Israeli authorities have provided significant amounts of cash, food, fuel and medical supplies to Sunni rebels fighting against Bashar al-Assad’s government, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday, citing "half a dozen rebels and three people familiar with Israel's thinking."" and "A special Israeli army unit was created to oversee the costly aid operation, the WSJ reported, which gives Fursan al-Joulan - Knights of the Golan - an estimated $5,000 (£3,900) a month. The group of around 400 fighters receives no direct support from Western rebel backers, and is not affiliated with the Free Syrian Army, the official rebel umbrella organisation."
So according to that, it Israel is for sure funding one armed opposition group, and might be funding 4 others.
Also, have you forgotten this? http://www.timesofisrael.com/two-israeli-druze-plead-guilty-in-killing-of-wounded-syrian-fighter/ Israeli Druse have attacked and killed Syrian fighters who had come to Israel for treatment. Those Syrian fighters had a rather unsavoury reputation, including killing Druse women and children in Syria,
Also, AFAIK, Israel is still nominally at war with Syria. If you believe that Israel only has a "humanitarian mission" in Syria, then I have a very nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. You might also want to meet my good friend, the Nigerian Prince X, who needs your help to get some millions out of Nigeria? Huldra (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea what do you mean by "I have a very nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. You might also want to meet my good friend, the Nigerian Prince X, who needs your help to get some millions out of Nigeria?". Clearly you are off-topic.GreyShark (dibra) 12:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Seriously? The actions of some Druze villagers does not make the State of Israel a combatant. Legacypac (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Did you read the source? The Druze villagers attacked because the people were Syrian fighters. Do you seriously think they would have attacked...sending themselves to Israeli jails for years...if they hadn't known that the wounded men in the Israeli ambulances were Syrian fighters? If you do, then I still have a very nice bridge in Brooklyn to sell! Huldra (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Druze villagers lynching severely wounded Sunni fighters who were transferred by military ambulance to hospital - that is not a sign of involvement - that is humanitarian assistance (which angered Druze in the Golan and the Galilee (there was a failed lynching in the Galilee) - as the Sunnis were pressuring Hadar). I'll note that other RS (including I believe WSJ) have indicated that Israeli is also providing some assistance to Hadar (the Druze village on the Syrian side of the line) recently. All groups mentioned by WSJ are fairly small and local.Icewhiz (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
No, it does not "indicated that Israeli is also providing some assistance", it clearly says "The Israeli authorities have provided significant amounts of cash, food, fuel and medical supplies to Sunni rebels fighting against Bashar al-Assad’s government." Why, oh why is it that suddenly people are not able to read English anymore? Huldra (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I am able to read English. And I actually follow just about every media (and I'll not also less reputable, though often informative, social media), in English, Arabic, and Hebrew report on Syria, as part of my day job. The support indicated by WSJ is a very small cash contribution and some supplies. Less reputable sources (though I will note I am inclined to believe them) indicate a bit more. However this is far from belligerent status, which would entail at the very least significant Israeli fire at Syria. Most Israelis woild not have a problem in intervening in Syria if there were a clear gain from it, but this simply has not happend. All there is is a fairly low level of support, very minor cross border fire, and once in a blue moon an airstrike.Icewhiz (talk) 04:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
To be clear the WSJ article (which relays information from interviews with half a dozen alleged rebel fighters - so interesting, but not a statement of fact) has a claim by a rebel leader that his small village group is receiving 5,000$ a month from Israel. This isn't even peanuts - it is crumbs. The Fursan al-Julan group has 400 fighters (per WSJ), and the four other groups referenced by WSJ have per WSJ 400 more fighters (so 800 total) - which is a very-very small local Syrian organization. This is not a level of significant support, and it is definitely not something that places Israel as a belligerent.Icewhiz (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
I would imagine that in a war torn country, goods would at least as useful, or more useful, than money. So even if 5,000$ a month is a tiny sum (I agree), that only leaves significant amounts of food, fuel and medical supplies ..to quote the article. Not to mention the airstrikes (some mention below), which I assume do not come for free, Huldra (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Significant to whom..... To Israel not. To the small amount of villagers remaining in war torn Syria (in the Syrian Golan which was sparse to begin with), where an ethnic cleansing campaign is undergoing against Sunnies, it is probably most significant (as stated by sources). It is even of some military significance - as the Syrian regime has been attempting to starve out some of these Sunni settlements (and has succeeded elsewhere). However - supplying food, or even arms, is support at most - and does not make one a belligerent. The airstrikes against Hezbollah conveys are a separate matter - and Israel has carried out airstrikes in Syria in the past, not during war time - e.g. Ain es Saheb airstrike or the 1960s water project bombings - and these are allegedly directed at targets not related to the war (arms buildup of Hezbollah). The current level of alleged support does not even raise to significant supports - all the credible RSes are alleging less than peanuts - crumbs. And even claims in non-RS do not rise so much beyond this (perhaps a covert involvement, but covert - is covert - not formal). Had Israel been formally involved - there would be a much more significant firing of projectiles - e.g. see the mass of fire in the various Gaza wars/operations or Lebanon 2006.Icewhiz (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
They might be insignificant to Israel, but they are clearly significant to the rebels! And there are lots more sources covering the Israeli involvement than say, the Dutch, or the Norwegian involvement. Still these two countries are listed as "Main belligerents", while Israel is not, LOL! Its articles like this which make Wikipedia appear like a joke..Huldra (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Significant only to minor Sunni very local rebel groups in the Syrian Golan adjacent to Israeli turf - and not the main rebel groups in more populated areas (e.g. eastern Damascus and elsewhere). The Dutch have comitted an F-16 squadron - which is quite a bit of firepower - for daily operations over Iraq and Syria (mainly vs. Islamic State) - this is quite a bit more firepower than Israel has used.Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
See also: [21][22][23][24][25]. GABgab 23:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
This is clearly referring to the Iran-Israel proxy conflict during the Syrian War. Most of the alleged incidents are not directly linked with Israel, but are suggested to be so. With 8 Air Force fleets operating in the skyes of Syria, it is a very long shot to claim which bombing was done by Israelis, while tens of thousands of airstrikes are performed by Ba'athist SAA, US, Russia, Turkey, and to a lesser degree others, like Jordan, UK, UAE, Saudia.GreyShark (dibra) 12:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Israel listed as supporting the opposition

Latest comment: 6 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

This article is used to support Israel as supporting the opposition. I have looked around, and I cannot see any other outlets reporting or corroborating any of this, but the writer of the article [seems somewhat credible](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rania_Khalek). However, I see an extraordinary claim here without much evidence provided in the article, so on one hand leaning towards removing it until this is confirmed by more sources. On the other hand, Alternet's credibility as a source doesn't seem to be challenged and the writer seems well-established, so what do you guys think? Eik Corell (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Not sure of the writer/source. But the piece doesn't actually really provide anything terribly new - it states the local level low-level support to cross-border Sunni forces (Food, medical, some military to a limited extent) - which is well published. It then follows on with allegations, unsubstantiated, that Israel has attempted to kill Majed. How does Majed know that the drone strikes are Israeli? and not Jordanian? or American? or something else? Is Majed a RS? Are the NDF soldiers interviewed a RS for Israeli involvement (the source of air/artillery strikes)?Icewhiz (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Military aid to "limited extent" from Israel to the Sunni rebels? Can you give sources to this?GreyShark (dibra) 15:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Stress on extremely limited - the same WSJ article that's been making waves - [26].Icewhiz (talk) 15:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Unless there is something i'm missing, this is typical case of a reliable source citing rumors ("Israel has been regularly supplying Syrian rebels near its border with cash as well as food, fuel and medical supplies for years, a secret engagement in the enemy country’s civil war aimed at carving out a buffer zone populated by friendly forces. The Israeli army is in regular communication with rebel groups and its assistance includes undisclosed payments to commanders that help pay salaries of fighters and buy ammunition and weapons, according to interviews with about half a dozen Syrian fighters...". WSJ clearly indicates a fact that Israel supplies humanitarian and medical aid, but when speaking of "buy ammunition and weapons", it discusses a rumor - it says "according to interviews with about half a dozen Syrian fighters". Rumors cited by reliable sources are still rumors and not facts.GreyShark (dibra) 16:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
You might also find this interesting if you missed it - [27] [28]. To a certain extent you are right - it is rumors (or what some of the rebels say) that the WSJ states with attribution (just Alternet does here). But even if the rumors are true - this is an extremely limited degree of support in a very limited geographical/organizational scope (these are all very local groups, a few hundred fighters along the border).Icewhiz (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The airstrikes thing caught me as well. The article even goes on to quote a rebel: "They killed two of our soldiers last year. They confuse us and the Syrian army with Hezbollah.". I'm seeing a lot of unsubstantiated reports like this, and it seems par for the course to blame Israel for all kinds of things from ISIS itself, to assisting ISIS or the FSA, etc. I'm still leaning towards removing it. Eik Corell (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
They might just refer to the Israeli counterfire (by air or rocket) vs Syria each time a round lands in Israel. This is a low intensity sparodic cross border fire.Icewhiz (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - AlterNet doesn't seem to have any editorial board or policy, and thus though it might be popular to some extent it is not reliable per WP:RS.GreyShark (dibra) 16:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I see no reason not to trust AlterNet in this case. It's received journalistic awards from numerous organizations -- including NPR, which is a state media company of the USA, a crucial Israeli ally. Therefore, I would say it has boosted credibility as a source biased against including secret Israeli support covering it regardless. In addition, it's good to include AlterNet at least in addition to WSJ as it is not paywalled. Furthermore, they do have an editor leading them and a foundation backing them and therefore they would logically have internal policies, even if they aren't published. I do not see any provision of WP:RS condemning investigative journalism, and therefore believe that the article -- which pretty much is typical investigative journalism -- should be considered legitimate. Nuke (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
One editor is exactly the opposite to the editorial board. Alternet in not WP:RS and it doesn't matter how much people may like it or not.GreyShark (dibra) 10:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter - as even if were to consider this reliable, it is relating the narrative of a Golan brigade commander (NDF). So if reliable we could state that Ahmad Kaboul said so and so - but not much beyond that.Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:RS does not require that any news organization have an editorial board, but merely "editorial oversight". As AlterNet at least has an editor, we should assume that they have editorial oversight. Nuke (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Israel provided medical treatment to fighters from Nusra and currently does it to other rebels who go back to the frontlines. That much is admitted by Israeli official sources themselves. Medical treatment to fighters and tolerance for them to go back to frontline is limited support and not just some whim of humanitarian work. Sources like Jerusalem Post have reported it, basing on a report by Wall Street Journal. The former is a pro Israeli right wing news org and the later is pro US republican one. Haaretz, a left leaning Israeli organization, has also reported on it and they quote an officer that claims Israeli did give medical treatment to Nusra but stopped in doing so. http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Israel-treating-al-Qaida-fighters-wounded-in-Syria-civil-war-393862 http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.666961 CaliphoShah (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Medical treatment isn't enough to be listed on the infobox, based on current Wikipedia consensus, as it is "non-lethal" aid. In other words, Israel needs to supply ammunition or something else of that sort, or directly use weapons (but not troops on the ground) to attack the enemies of al-Nusra in battle, to be considered a combatant, and they are additionally granted an exception for any such military action as it relates to Hezbollah. Nuke (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Israel also provided medical aid to pro-Asad fighters and was accused by the opposition for supporting the Ba'ath regime in Syria.GreyShark (dibra) 06:43, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

RfC #2

Latest comment: 6 years ago47 comments15 people in discussion

An awkward situation was created as RfC at Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War was closed in complete contrast with the Syrian Civil War main page community consensus (herewith "consensus") including the most recent above listed RfC concerning the alleged role of Israel in the Syrian Civil War. So far, we have a solid consensus not to count Israel as belligerent nor supporter at the Syrian Civil War page, but it appears that other Syrian Civil War related pages are becoming confused - one page claiming this and the other claiming that, with much lower editorial participation in decisions. This doesn't seem to be logical and consistent and hence I would like to ask editors whether the consensus achieved at RfC above (Israel is not a notable belligerent nor supporter) is to be applied to all other Syrian Civil War topic pages, including for instance Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War and Quneitra offensive (June 2017). GreyShark (dibra) 08:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Please vote "Support" (consensus to be applied to all topic pages) or "Oppose" (decision should be made on each page individually) and provide with an explanation. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 08:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War. Tone Down Quneitra offensive (June 2017) - Israel should be noted there, but not at the level it is presently.Icewhiz (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear - you mean support exclusion of Israel from Foreign involvement article and propose to downgrade its notability in infobox in Quneitra offensive (June 2017); the question is however more broad - what to do when editors of other pages claim alternative consensus to include Israel as belligerent/supporter (like at talk:Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War) which is inconsistent with current consensus at talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel and specifically denies inclusion of Israel in infobox as belligerent or supporter per above RfC; Israel can certainly be mentioned in the infobox (as in Quneitra Governorate clashes (2012–14) article) in regard to confirmed spillover incidents, as long as it is not shown as supporting a certain side.GreyShark (dibra) 09:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
      It is context dependent. Israel might merit mention in the infobox in an extremely local campaign (and smallish in scope/effect) along its border fence (and DMZ - including belligerents that are allegedly partially based in the DMZ beyond the border fence) in which there were cross-fire incidents during the campaign (alleged mortar first falling in Israel, Israel allegedly attacking targets of one of the belligerents in response to said alleged fire), and in which some of the belligerents are those very small local groups Israel has allegedly been in contact with. At the current level of involvement - Israel does not merit, in my opinion, a mention at the infobox level for the entire civil-war - as whatever the level of involvement is (we know what RS say, beyond is CRYSTALBALL of course) - we don't have sourcing for anything of wider strategic importance (setting aside the Hezbollah arm supplies - different conflict) for the campaign as a whole. We should be consistent - but there are exceptions (Quneitra would possibly be one of them. Incidents vs. Shuhada al-Yarmouk might be another) - but they are on an extremely local level (adjacent to Israel) - our position on Israel should be consistent between Syrian Civil War and non-adjacent campaigns - e.g. Aleppo, Deir Al-Zor, Idlib, etc.Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the long standing concensus on the parent page trumps local concensus on daughter pages some of us were not aware existed. This principle has been very clear on the ISIL naming debate for example. If RS discuss some Israeli action, by all means include, but don't turn them into a belligerent. Legacypac (talk) 10:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as per the strong consensus achieved after quite a bit of discussion here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, that is if i correctly understand this vote. I do not believe the exclusion of Israel from a list of belligerents in this and some other articles should trigger exclusion of the relevant section in Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War: Israel′s involvement (albeit not a belligerent) is beyond any doubt, if only as a neighbour of Syria: all Syria′s neighbour counries are involved some way or other; and if a neighbour is not involved, that would be most remarkable and notable in itself to merit a section in that particular article.Axxxion (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose, to me, there seem to be different standard w.r.t. Israeli involvement , than with any other country. Is anyone really suggesting that, say Germany, or Norway, have larger involvement in the Syrian war than Israel? I thought not. And still, Germany, and Norway, are listed as parties to to the conflict, while Israel is not. This is a ridiculous double standard, Huldra (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing your logic. Norway has troops doing advising (which often involves shooting) and running a border crossing taken from ISIL.[1]. When did Israel put troops in Syria? Legacypac (talk) 22:40, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Besides the bombing raids (dont they count?), Israel is funding rebel forces, including funding their ammunition, Huldra (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Frankly you could cut out minor coalition members with token participation, however they are DECLARED conbatants. The air raids you are referring to are part of a long running Israel\Iran/Hezbollah conflict which is not (yet) part of the civil war. The degree of alleged published support for fence adjacent rebel groups is peanuts. Even less than peanuts.Icewhiz (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
There is no reliable source yet to support your claim of "funding their ammunition"; the only confirmed deliveries from Israel into Syria are humanitarian aid items, including medicals, food, fuel (for water pumps) and very limited finance (for humanitarian needs only). Remarkably Israel supplies both rebel-controlled areas at the Golan and at least one pro-regime village.GreyShark (dibra) 10:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Thisarticle from The Independent clearly says "Israel may be funding up to four other rebel groups which have Western backing. The groups use the cash to pay fighters and buy ammunition." How come that editors here cannot understand English anymore? Huldra (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
"May be funding" (maybe and maybe not) is well defining the situation as already mentioned above by Davidbena.GreyShark (dibra) 13:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. It has become "fashionable" to accuse Israel of things it has not done, or instigated. To the best of my knowledge, there is a coalition of western powers (including Jordan) working alongside the USA in the Syrian conflict. Israel is not one of these, to the best of my knowledge. Australia was even recently involved in air raids, until it pulled out its forces after a Russian fighter jet was downed and Russia had threatened to view all coalition military aircraft fighting without Syria's permission in Syria as valid targets. You see, Israel is NOT doing this, unless of course it wishes to preemptively strike at forces planning an attack on Israel. Strikes carried-out in self-defense cannot be construed for active involvement in the Civil War, since Israel has been defending itself since time immemorial - without any connection to the current Civil War.Davidbena (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The other pages are simply correct. Yet again, Israel is a belligerent in this war on the side of the Sunni Islamist rebels, in addition to supporting them financially[29] and medically[30]. Stating the opposite is simply special pleading. Israel is accused of "all sorts of things" because Israel does not shy away from doing "all sorts of things". At this point, I'm baffled pro-Israelis even care to contest this fact; the Israeli government isn't even trying to hide their allegiances in this war.[31] No one in the real world is fooled, but I predict this Wikipedia page will present a fantasy version of the Israeli role for years to come. FunkMonk (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
FunkMonk, if what you say is true, can you please cite your reliable Israeli government source where the Israeli government admits to being "involved" in the Syrian conflict? If you cannot do this, then what you say here is mere hearsay. When the former Israeli Defense Minister, Yaalon, said early last year that he would prefer Islamic State to Iran in Syria, it is a far cry from admitting to Israeli military intervention in the crisis. Perhaps you equate mere wishes with military action.Davidbena (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As FunkMonk stated, there are many sources that indicate Israeli involvement in supporting Syrian rebels. Nochyyy (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Your comment is not referring to the question - does the consensus of this page (above RfC) apply regarding the role of Israel apply to all Syrian Civil War topic pages. The above RfC (concerning Israeli involvement Yes/No) is already closed.GreyShark (dibra) 10:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
It should be added to all articles that Israel supports Syrian rebels, if that is not possible, the current situation should be kept. Nochyyy (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
If Israel gives humanitarian aid to Syrians, this is not the same as military support. If you have proof that Israel supports rebels militarily in the current conflict, please provide it. I have not seen any. As for Israel's own stance, by the following recently published article, it is plain that Israel has heretofore not involved itself in the current conflict, other than what might be perceived as self-defense. See: Israel may act. Cheers.Davidbena (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Davidbena Please read, eg. Thisarticle from The Independent clearly says "Israel may be funding up to four other rebel groups which have Western backing. The groups use the cash to pay fighters and buy ammunition." Now, when did paying fighters and buying ammunition become "humanitarian aid"? Seriously....Huldra (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
That is a RS reporting rumours as rumours. Legacypac (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The words "may be funding" say it all; it's all speculative. Besides, I see no reason why Israel should get involved in this conflict.Davidbena (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
No, that is a RS, citing "half a dozen rebels and three people familiar with Israel's thinking." Gosh, you really don't want to understand English anymore, do you? Lol. Huldra (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
In Quneitra, Israel always hit Syrian army positions, it never attacked Syrian rebels. Also, its airplanes several times bombed Damascus and other positions of Syrian government. The reason is clear, Assad government is an ally of Iran and Hezbollah. Nochyyy (talk) 06:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
It isn't as clear as you put it out. The heavy airstrikes are purportedly against arm shipments to Hezbollah - so this is a different issue. Regarding counterifre in the Golan area, while I personally suspect the same (for many but not all of the counterfire incidents), the stated Israeli position is that it sees the Syrian government (and in relation to Lebanon and Gaza - there is/was a similar policy of responses) for all fire coming out of its territory - thus a response is directed towards the government from whose de-jure territory Israel was fired upon.Icewhiz (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
This is factually not correct - Israelis have hit Ba'athist SAA and allied militant positions, FSA and pro-ISIL militants. But again - this is not the question of this RfC. The question is: should the consensus here (whatever it is) also apply to all Syrian Civil War topic pages.GreyShark (dibra) 11:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
      • So as i understand User:Nochyyy - you do support the idea that the consensus here should apply to all topic pages, but you do not agree with the current consensus. Is that correct?GreyShark (dibra) 11:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
To be honest, Israeli involvement is in the gray zone, it is not so insignificant that we can ignore it and it is not that obvious (at least for some people) either. And I believe decisions should be made on each page individually. Nochyyy (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification.GreyShark (dibra) 13:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- consensus should not mean removal of information regarding their involvement from other pages. Nuke (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This should be decided for individual articles since Israel's involvement in this war varies widely from battle to battle. Applodion (talk) 21:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Israel has been involved to a smaller or larger degree throughout the war, each article should have discussions if they want to modify Israel involvement. Sgisright (talk) 22:14, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral - Brought here by bot. A preponderance of sources (New York Times: Israel has repeatedly hit targets in Syria during the country’s six-year civil war[32] | Chicago Tribune: Israel is widely believed to have carried out airstrikes in recent years on advanced weapons systems in Syria [33], etc.) demonstrate Israel is a military intervener in Syria during the time period in which the Syrian Civil War is occurring and against known belligerents in that war. To the question of Israel's own belligerency (which would seem to demand its inclusion in the infobox), my copy of Kelsen's Principles of International Law says that a belligerent would be an entity which has (a) a military organization separate and independent of any other, (b) is engaged in activities that have the characteristics of warfighting, (c) the entity controls part of the territory in which the war occurs, or has part of its territory controlled. If someone could convince me that "c" applies to Israel - or has applied to Israel at some point during the SCW, I would change my !vote to Oppose.
(I do not support the idea that the GOI must confirm its military involvement as a precondition of inclusion as seems to have been suggested elsewhere; this would put the Government of Israel in the position of exercising a de facto veto over the content of Wikipedia articles. Reality exists independent of a state's decision to issue, or not issue, a press release.) Chetsford (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Consistency across Wikipedia articles is preferred.--Rpclod (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

This RfC misreads the consensus from the prior RfC. I agreed that Israel is not a combatant. I, personally, did not rule out their involvement or support. I'm not going to !vote in an all-or-nothing proposal. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but you basically say don't like the outcome of the RfC on Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War, so you basically start a new RfC which will invalidate it? And Israeli involvement is a heck of a lot more that "X accuses Israel of supporting" or "X hinted on Israeli airstrike", as I think we all know. Huldra (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Show us a RS for that statement. As far as I've ever seen Israel has been carefully staying out of the SCW. Legacypac (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Israel is funding rebel forces, basically fighting by proxy. See above, under Sources for the Israeli involvement RfC. Huldra (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Huldra, are you making a trick here by first agreeing to move RfC from Foreign involvement to this page, but then making it with a slightly different wording here and now claiming the two RfCs are not linked? Instead of procedurally closing the older RfC at Foreign involvement article, some editor decided to close the intermediate result there in opposite to the long standing consensus on the topic and contrary to the successive RfC.GreyShark (dibra) 10:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Huh?? I agreed to having two RfC,. And consensus can change, as we all know, as circumstances change, Huldra (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Got it, here goes WP:GF...GreyShark (dibra) 10:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
The sources only report rumors and unverified claims. Legacypac (talk) 07:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.nrttv.com/en/Details.aspx?Jimare=14624

China and North Korea

Latest comment: 6 years ago22 comments4 people in discussion

With another edit-warring over the inclusion of China and North Korea in the infobox, i've created talk:Syrian Civil War/North Korea (so far no consensus to include North Korea as belligerent nor supporter), whereas concerning China - i'm under the impression that the recent discussion was in favor of its inclusion (see 2016 discussion). If there are different opinions on China, let's discuss.GreyShark (dibra) 11:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Greyshark09:" Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources", so just a visit by a Chinese admiral is no enough for including china in the support list of Syrian government, if political support is a reason for including countries in a list, then Venezuela should be included as well. If North Korea and China really supported Syrian government militarily, then it would be a big news, now just some small articles. Nochyyy (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Obviously i agree with you that a visit by an admiral is not a support; support has clearly to be one of the following: military support (training, advisors, weapons) and/or logistic support (arms sales during the conflict, or financing such arms sales). According to AP: "Despite that, Chinese military advisers are on the ground in Syria helping train soldiers in the use of weapons purchased from China, including sniper rifles, rocket launchers and machine guns, reported the Global Times, which is published by the ruling Communist Party’s flagship newspaper People’s Daily." This in my opinion could warrant inclusion of China as supporter.GreyShark (dibra) 10:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I found the Global Times article [34], it is stating that "Many contracts were signed before the Syrian civil war, but due to the unstable situation, many couldn't be fulfilled in the past few years" It is a very weak military support and many of the contracts is not being implemented due to civil war, the current limited training is due to pre-civil war contracts. My point is that Chinese support is so weak (Article says it too) that we can't count China as a major player in supporting Syrian government from military point of view. Nochyyy (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Not a major supporter, but if they sell weapons and send advisors and instructors to Syria - it could well warrant support. Let's hear more opinions on this topic.GreyShark (dibra) 11:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The provision of lethal weapons and military advisers on the ground is about the most concrete textbook definition of "support" you can find. Any more than that would make China an active belligerent in the conflict, so the notion of "very weak [vs., presumably, 'strong'] military support" holds no water. Beyond that, it's absolutely not self-evident to me why Chinese support — in a global proxy war defined by complex and shifting alliances — would be a case of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Albrecht (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
China is not implementing many pre-war contracts due to civil war and in the source it is stated that China does not want the wrath of Arab states, so it is keeping a low-profile in regards to the Syrian conflict. Also, China almost is never mentioned in the mainstream media as a supporter of Assad government, it is not included in any peace talks, no western governments asked china to stop supporting Assad. Also, if China should be added, then Israel should be included in the support list of rebels as well, since Israel has actively supported rebels in many instances and bombed Hezbollah and Syrian government. Nochyyy (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
China keeping a low profile — as it tends to do in all diplomatic/geopolitical engagements outside the Asia-Pacific — and China providing military-technical support to the Syrian Arab Republic are not mutually exclusive. Mainstream media discourse, participation in the peace process, the (lack of) reactions from foreign governments: all these are immaterial to the question of whether China has provided military assistance to the SAR, which, per WP:SOURCEs, it has. Incidentally, I agree re. Israel, but that too is immaterial to the discussion at hand. Albrecht (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The problem is that there is a lack of sources for Chinese support for Syrian regime, there is only one article that claims there are some Chinese military advisers in Syria. The magnitude of support is important, there could be only 10 Chinese adviser there, is it considered supporting government in a large scale civil war? Nochyyy (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Actually, there isn't anything close to a lack of sources: see The Telegraph, Reuters, The National Interest, etc. Note that these publications unambiguously use the words "support" and "military cooperation." There are also many other aspects to Beijing's support: humanitarian assistance, economic (credit, etc.), diplomatic; but, to avoid endlessly hairsplitting, the criteria we use are the provision of lethal weapons and (non-combat) military personnel. Since there are only a handful of countries providing this (Russia, Iran, Iraq, China, and possibly Egypt) to a relatively isolated state, why not list them? Albrecht (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The Reuters article emphasizes how little the Chinese are involved - specifically less than the other permanent security council members. The "training" appears to be the kind of drills many countries do together. Weapons sales are not significant. Ya, China is at best a friend to Syria. Legacypac (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This is, stricto sensu, wrong: dispatching military personnel to help train the army of a country engaged in a war is a hugely significant show of support—in fact, the very definition of "support" this article has been using. It is not at all "the kind of drills many countries do together" (and in any case, countries that engage in high-level military exercises tend to be bound by formal military alliances—the "support" there is already implied). Whether this support matches the level of support given by certain other entities to certain other actors in this conflict (which, anyway, would be hard to measure) is not relevant. Albrecht (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

All these articles states that China does not want involvement in syrian crisis, wkae the national interest article "Beijing’s engagements have been fairly limited, and mostly focused on attempts from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to insert itself into peace negotiations and occasional expressions of concern around individual nationals who appear on the battlefield". Reuters article only mention "humanitarian assistance" and "China has shown no interest in getting involved militarily in Syria". All these indicate that China should not be included in the list of Assad supporters. Nochyyy (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Note the past tense—"have been fairly limited"; i.e. a reality which is shifting. The rest of your comment involves subjective interpretations of statements cherry-picked to bolster your case, not a discussion of the real criteria used to determine military support: the dispatching of weaponry and military advisors. Albrecht (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
"have been" only reflects that the newspaper reports what happened and does not predict the future. Legacypac (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Consider Invasion of Poland, France and UK are not included in the supporting list of Poland due to "very limited" assistance. Here, we have a similar case. At best case, we can include China in a footnote. Nochyyy (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Good point — but not, I think, the one you wanted to make: if France and Britain had provided lethal weaponry and in situ advisors to train the Polish army, they surely would be listed as supporters (cf. Polish–Soviet War). Legacypac, these reports are obviously not predicting the future, but rather reporting on the present as it compares to the past. If there had been no change in China's level of involvement, there would, strictly speaking, be nothing on which to report. Albrecht (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
France even launched Saar Offensive to assist Poland, UK blockaded German ports (Blockade of Germany (1939–45)). But as these actions were "limited", thus they are not listed as supporters of Poland. France and UK had military alliance with Poland, while China only has "very limited" military cooperation with Syria. Nochyyy (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
This is getting widely off-topic, but the Saar Offensive was obviously outside the Polish theatre of operations, and therefore not considered within scope of the September Campaign: otherwise, France would be listed, not merely as a supporter, but as a belligerent. Please, don't be silly.
The bottom line is this: the supply of lethal weaponry + military advisors to a participant in a conflict is the widely-used barometer of "support." China meets these conditions. So far, all the objections have been based on ad-hoc subjective ideas of what, ideally, "support" should consist of. But you can't cherry-pick and apply your own standards to pet articles: if lethal weaponry + military advisors does not indicate support, then all supporters would have to be reevaluated and vetted across the board. Albrecht (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I just try to have a logical conversation here, you can not insult people if you disagree with them and don't behave high and mighty because Wikipedia does not belong to you, so you cannot decide when a conversation is over. Saar Offensive was launched to distract German troops in Poland, do not twist the reality. The limited factor comes to play there. Nochyyy (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there's nothing in this comment relevant to the topic, or with which I can usefully engage. If you want to make a case for why the supply of lethal weaponry + military advisors on the ground does not equal support, please do so clearly. Albrecht (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_45&oldid=937355264"