Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 42

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Once again this page was moved to lowercase without consensus. Not to mention the fact the more people opposed the move than supported it in the above discussion. This page should be moved back immediately and put under protection against future moves without consensus. Charles Essie (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I would take it back to move review. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

What aspect of the close do you dispute?

WP:CONSENSUS does not involve only vote counting, the merits of the arguments should be taken into consideration too. The close above is quite detailed, and I think is a reasonable summary of the discussion.  — Amakuru (talk

) 16:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I recognize that it's not only vote counting but the summary of the discussion does not take into account that even so there was no still consensus. For example, it didn't even mention the very good points made by 2601:CB:8001:28EB:E5FD:FC8:E274:5446 in the last entry which I think could have been the clinging arguement. Charles Essie (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The last argument says we should not use Google searches to determine whether something is a proper name, but does not offer any insight into what we should do instead. Note that the purpose of the Google search is not to do a count of unreliable sources, but to try to drill down to the *reliable* sources, which includes news media and books, and see what they say. If they, the high quality reliable sources, don't consistently capitalise, then neither should we, even if we think they're wrong. We aren't here to

WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH on the matter. I agree that the close did not address that point though.  — Amakuru (talk

) 17:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

He also mentioned that this title has been capitalized for years (which I might add was the result of a discussion that had consensus) and that the only reason we're even having this discussion is because someone moved this page without any prior discussion. Charles Essie (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering the many earlier extensive discussions, there was prior consensus in favor of lowercase twice (

MOS:CAPS rather than rehashing this particular case. — JFG ^talk

08:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The capitalized title was longer standing than the lower-case title. It also was the last title to have been agreed to through consensus. We've had it for two and a half years without any issue until someone moved it without discussion. Charles Essie (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The arguments made in the 2012 discussion were stronger than those made in the 2013, as they talked to our policies and guidelines, and actual evidence of usage out there in the real world. The 2013 relied mostly on consistency. But as plenty of people have said, consistency is self fulfilling and can perpetuate incorrect titles. There was a time when every single bird was capitalised, but then we moved away from that.[1] It's probably time to re-evaluate a lot of the Civil War articles.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

That still doesn't preclude my argument that within the past month this article was moved to lowercase twice without clear consensus. See

WP:NOCON ("When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted"). Charles Essie (talk

) 18:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• I didn't offer an alternative because others had already done so; consistency with other articles on wars. It'd be easier to simply change the title later if and when the Oxford Dictionary or the Encyclopedia Britannica (or whatever authority tends to write war titles historically) offers a different title than to the one that exists in the wiki article. This should NOT have been closed arbitrarily yet again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8001:28EB:8DE0:71AC:76E5:158B (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Encyclopedia Britannica has it capitalized. Charles Essie (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• That is because they are an encyclopedia that doesn't deal with month long circular discussions, but rather a few writers. I wasn't there but I am sure the discussion went something like this:

• Editor 1: "Hmm should we put Civil War in caps?"
• Editor 2: "Eh... sure why not?"

- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• There's no way we can no that for sure. Charles Essie (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah I dunno where the implication that they somehow put less thought into their articles than Wikipedia comes from, but thats complete weaksauce as an argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8001:28EB:8950:7B4B:62A6:7648 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• From what I saw, the vote to maintain the name as it was had a clear majority. It would seem that there is an ironclad desire to have the name moved to lowercase letters in spite of the Encyclopedia Britannica and several other sources using uppercase letters, and the arguments presented in the discussion before the last one. The overwhelming majority of civil war articles have their names capitalized, and as far as it see it now, there is no legitimate argument to have the last few civil war articles in lowercase letters. If anything, the trend of using lowercase letters in civil war articles is relatively recent, and seems to have no rationale outside of the "but no one else seems to capitalize the words" argument. Wikipedia is suppose to follow encyclopedic standards, and the Encyclopedia Britannica, the standard to which all other encyclopedias are measured, capitalizes the letters in the name. I see no reason why this is still an ongoing issue, as well as why this article was renamed in spite of lack of consensus combined with the clear majority of those opposed to the move. Vivaporius (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Vivaporius: As the closer, I feel that I need to respectfully counter your criticisms of the decision.

1. Consensus is
   not a vote count
   , and there was anyway no "clear majority" in this discussion (4 Support, 5 Oppose, 3 Neutral including nominator).
2. There is no "ironclad desire" of imposing any style: various editors expressed themselves freely in many debates, defending both spelling variants, and as mentioned in my closure rationale I was never involved in prior discussions or in editing the relevant articles.
3. Yes, many other civil war articles are capitalized, but moving to lowercase is not a "recent trend", it is a
   longstanding policy
   , which was indeed already applied to this very article by consensus in the 2012 debates.
4. The 2013 debate did support caps but the 2012 debates had many more participants and comprehensive rationales; I have given due weight to arguments presented in all titling discussions from 2012 to 2016.
5. Your own arguments in favour of caps, which led to the move of 31 May 2016, were refuted by Amakuru in the move review. The clear consensus outcome of the review was to relist, arguing lack of consensus on moving back to caps and premature close citing your rationale.
6. Finally, if you consider Britannica's titling standards superior to Wikipedia's, you should strive to change the house style, for example by opening a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization).

Now let us all

have a tea and carry on. — JFG ^talk

09:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Mmmm, tea. I'll have mine milk with no sugar please!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It true that when this article was re-capitalized last month the discussion did was closed prematurely. But what we're forgetting here is that just before that this article was moved to lowercase without consensus in the first place. It should've have reverted immediately and then we could have had a proper discussion (which likely would've resulted in no consensus). Because of this I must insist that we revert to the capitalized title because it was the last title to have been agreed to through consensus. Charles Essie (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with Charles Essie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.26.232 (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

How many rounds of move reviews would be enough? Meanwhile people are dying in this war… Not sure they care much about

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — JFG ^talk

18:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

It isn't about the people in the war. What they have to do with the argument has no basis other than what I consider an appeal to emotion. I'm not familiar with Amakuru's rebuke, and I don't believe I read it. Regardless, on your statement on consensus, who determines how "strong" an argument is? The fact that many were swayed into the oppose camp based upon the arguments presented, was a clear indication as to which argument was the most convincing. The vote was 6-4, not 5-4. The fact that there is a clear majority of those opposed to the use of lowercase letters and more support of the arguments they have put forth, shows that the consensus was not on the other side. While I understand the policy on consensus, I have yet to see who decides what is considered a "convincing" argument, and why they are moving articles without them. The move was opposed on multiple occasions, and their arguments were no doubt strong enough to maintain the status quo. You ask how many more reviews are needed to put this to an end, and I agree. The first review maintaining the name as it was capitalized should have been enough, as well as the one following it. Yet that was not enough. I only see one group pushing the matter, and as far as I have seen, it wasn't us. Vivaporius (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't rebuke anyone - I believe the word used above was "refute", and is presumably referring to this - [2] - where I analysed your comment and explained why I disagreed with it. You're perfectly right as well, that the horrors of the civil war have no bearing on whether or not we discuss the capitalization of the name. With regard to who assesses whether arguments are convincing, historically it has always been an administrator, or otherwise an experienced non-admin closer. The key thing is that they examine the arguments and match them to written policy and guidelines, in addition to simple vote counting... per

WP:CONSENSUS, both parts are important.  — Amakuru (talk

) 09:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for the poor usage of wording on my part. I didn't mean to use that particular word in my post. You have a point as to the latter half of your statement, though given the general majority and arguments on the pro -cap side, I would have liked to see some acknowledgement of that before the move. However, at this point we are kicking the can with no clear end in sight. I have no further statement on the subject. Vivaporius (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

If both are important than what happens when they condradict one another or when policy gives legitimacy to both arguements? Doesn't that mean "no consensus"? Charles Essie (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Revert to whatever was the previous consensus until the contradiction can be hashed out, then revisit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8080:C11C:B909:880A:7580:5569 (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Charles Essie (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - the closure of the last rename is clearly miscarried; there is a solid majority not to move the page - how come it moved?!GreyShark (dibra) 13:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

• My point exactly. We should move it back. Charles Essie (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• So who has the power to move it back? There was no consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:9DC4:516C:A2BF:55B5 (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

• There was no consensus to move it to lowercase in the first place. The capitalized version was last title which had consensus making it only the only legitimate title unless consensus is reached to move it to lowercase in a future discussion (which I doubt will happen considering the lack of consensus in the most recent discussions). Charles Essie (talk) 12:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion was closed as "move" on 3 July. You say there was no consensus, but the closer saw a consensus, when looking at the arguments made through the lend of WP policy. and closed it that way. That makes the 3 July close, rather than the 2013 close, the current accepted version of the title.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

The closer alone cannot determine consensus where none existed. That makes the "consensus" entirely the opinion of one person. The arguments in that particular discussion were mostly in opposition to going lower case. Considering that SINCE that closure, there has been a long debate in this talk chain, compared to the earlier consensus, no consensus had been reached on July 3rd. And Charles, I was only referring to the lowercase not having a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:4DEF:6B15:A34B:7A37 (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get that. It sounds like you agree with me though. Should we move it back yet? Charles Essie (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The IP editor is wrong - consensus is always determined by an admin or experienced non-admin who looks at the discussion and makes a close based on the consensus. If you disagree with the close, there is a process for challenging it at

WP:MRV. Normally you should speak to the closer first, and then file a request there if you are not satisfied with the closer's response. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk

) 14:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The closer clearly didn't read the debate then or, more likely, didn't care about the consensus because it was 5 to 4 in opposition to the move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:545D:A10F:13C9:82B6 (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. If anything there was consensus to retain capitalization. Charles Essie (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Monsters need caps. Lest we forget. 83.101.67.8 (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. Charles Essie (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

It's meant as a plea for caps. The subject of this article is a monster. I was sad after reading the article. I feel it needs caps. I'm a human. 83.101.67.8 (talk) 21:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

• Why is there no new debate on this? It's clear the debate is not over with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:7166:5F01:F5EA:9D73 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• So let's start one. Charles Essie (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a member, alas. That and I do not know how. Also, just reporting here that the main page is now also being changed, without discussion, to lowercase. Tried to revert it back to what was previously accepted but now I'm the one being accused of an edit war, so this needs to get back into discussion. Don't know why THIS section of the talk page can't count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:7166:5F01:F5EA:9D73 (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

• Probably because it doesn't have a requested move template. I guess I'll have to create one. Charles Essie (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 18 August 2016

No consensus?

What's going on here? There was clear consensus here to return to uppercase. This page must either be moved to upper case or at the very least this discussion should be reopened immediately. Charles Essie (talk) 14:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Woooooooooow. Just wow. This is getting quite blatant where consensus (yet again) has been reached to go back to capitalization and yet certain members or maybe a cabal of them decide that it doesn't exist. This needs arbitration at a different level I feel. Is there any recourse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:D421:B3EA:8BF8:5B09 (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Somebody refuses to pick up the phone here. Who's responsible? 83.101.67.8 (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

We might need to open a move review. Charles Essie (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. But how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:59A5:B2E1:C704:73AD (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Instructions are here. Charles Essie (talk) 20:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:59A5:B2E1:C704:73AD (talk) 01:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that al-Nusra now goes by the name Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, right? Should the labeling of the white area of the map be changed? -KaJunl (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I suggest to include all Army of Conquest areas under white color, since those form a clearly distinct coalition from Syrian opposition groups.GreyShark (dibra) 07:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds very good, I definitely support this idea. Only thing is, I'm not sure if we have enough sources to include the Army of Conquest on the map properly. Furthermore I think, that the map may look intensely green-white speckled, as the Army of Conquest operates almost all over Syria. But that's again a thing that should maybe discussed at the Module.

OK.GreyShark (dibra) 06:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

And because I already write here: At the infobox, the description for green colour links to

List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War or make up an article like List of rebel groups in the Syrian Civil War. Any other ideas for a solution?--Ermanarich (talk

) 18:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

"Syrian opposition" is not the same as "Syrian rebels". Linking to Syrian opposition is correct (might also be Syrian Revolutionary Command Council in more limited sense), as a congregation of Free Syrian Army, former Islamic Front groups and members of Fatah Halab. The opposition is a pseudo-state structure, which is taking the seat of Syria in the Arab League via the Syrian Coalition.GreyShark (dibra) 06:47, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Support Greyshark09's proposal as indeed the Army of Conquest forms a distinct oppositional power. Propose a hatched green-white color where our information isn't sufficiently precise. --PanchoS (talk) 10:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The Army of Conquest control large swathes of Idlib, Aleppo, and northern Hama but it doesn't operate in southern Syria, at least not since the end of 2015. What would happen to the Nusra territory in the south? Editor abcdef (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure? In the article about the Army of Conquest, it says

"In an October 2015 publication, the Washington D.C.-based

ISIS

"."

Personally I think that groups of southern Syria which are part of the Army of Conquest in the north can be counted as Army of Conquest in the south as well, or at least as affiliates. I'll link this discussion in the

Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War‎, to call the attention to this discussion.--Ermanarich (talk

) 16:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter that they changed their name, we don't refer to ISIL as "Islamic State" just because they do. On this note, why the hell did the new name become a new article?
  Nusra Front need to be merged immediately. FunkMonk (talk
  ) 20:14, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Now I think this is the best option. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• Applodion
• Ermanarich —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I am eager to hear people's opinions on this. Will adding another color confuse the map too much, or will it help to clarify the situation? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

That case was just a minor skirmish though, and the two sides quickly reconciled. On the other hand fighting between Jaysh al-Islam and al-Rahman Legion killed more than 500 people yet they're both labelled green for the rebels. Despite the clashes, Ahrar al-Sham and al-Nusra are still the closest allies so it doesn't make sense to lump in the former with green rebels whom Ahrar has farther relations with than with al-Nusra. Editor abcdef (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I also think it would make sense to include Nusra in the Army of Conquest color, as they are basically involved in all Army of Conquest operations and many Army of Conquest groups are effectively subordinates to al-Nusra. Due to the fact that, as mentioned above, the presence of the Army of Conquest in the south is somewhat dubious (though a "Army of Conquest - South" was reported n these areas) we should label it as "Army of Conquest and affiliates". Applodion (talk) 10:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

We should consider to wait a few more days with the decision. There are some reports that Fatah al-Sham, Ahrar al-Sham and other islamic groups will anounce a new alliance in the next days. (amongst others from this source:http://www.daeshdaily.com/august-22-2016/)--Ermanarich (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It has been 4 days, and I prompt on this. So far I have heard nothing except what Charles Lister said here. My assessment is that a rebranding of Al-Nusra was a lot easier to do than an actual merger of all Jaish Fateh groups, simple because they are spread out over dozens of fronts and have many differing interests and commanders. I'm not saying we should implement the above change. I would actually like more of a consensus first. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Right.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Just because they're "considering" to merge doesn't mean they actually merged. Remember, Nusra has been considering to change its name since last year but only did it last month, so unless the rebel groups actually merged, it will make no difference. Editor abcdef (talk

) 00:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Map stays as it is. Nusra changed their name, so why suddenly all these topics are being discussed, and why not 3 weeks earlier ? It's a fact, Nusra is either the 2nd or the 3rd most powerful rebel group, while it's not easy to determine which group controls which area, as 80% of media outlets use the word "Rebels" for either FSA, Ahrar, Jaish Islam etc, while everybody clearly makes a distinction with Nusra, for example SOHR, they almost seperate "Rebel groups, and Jabhat Al Nusra (Al Qaeda in Levant), now Jabhat Sham". They have a clear different political view, thus making a merger between them and Ahrar impossible. We can discuss in free time whether Ahrar is much different than Jaish Islam etc, but for Nusra, impossible, a clear distinction. I know, Hezbollah, SAA, etc etc, but we all know they're a foreign group, while Nusra in 90% of cases have a permanent stay in a current area, thus easy for us to edit, even without SOHR.

talk

) 00:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2016

This edit request to Syrian civil war has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

{{subst:void|State UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes. Other editors need to know what to add or remove. Blank edit requests will be declined. In the section "Kurdish advances and Turkish military intervention (August 2016–present)" it refers to a "U.S. defense minister", it should specify it's Secretary Ashton B Carter or use the correct title of "Secretary of Defense". Troopertx004 (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Done Topher385 (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

One of the most glaring problems with the Infobox is the figure of a 40,000-50,000 strong FSA, which many observers of the war will tell you is preposterously inflated. (See the FSA article for a variety of strength estimates, as well as doubts as to whether such a body, properly speaking, exists at all.) A more critical weakness is the source itself, which in no way backs up this figure:

But it is doubtful if Saudi Arabia can truly adopt and stick with a separate policy from the US in Syria in which it funds a Sunni army 40,000 to 50,000 strong that is hostile to both al-Qa'ida linked movements and to Mr Assad.

Mr Cockburn here is clearly referring to the Saudi strategy of building up Sunni insurgent groups, many of which are not FSA-affiliated. It's also completely unclear whether the figure of 40,000-50,000 is a target, or projection, or a tally of actually existing forces. Either way, Mr. Cockburn's figure patently doesn't apply in calculating the numerical strength of the existing FSA groups. Albrecht (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi to all the editors !

I have a question, why the Turkish casualties since 24 august and the beginning of the Turkish intervention are not in the infobox in "Casualties and losses" like the Russians casualties, the iranians casualties, the CJTF-OIR casualties ?

I see that the number of Tuskish casualties is updated in this section "other foreign soldiers killed" but, now Tuskish soldiers died in the Syrian soil, it's a direct involvement like Russia or Iran.

Turkist lose 1 soldiers against SDF some days ago and 2 against ISIS today in direct confrontation in Syria against Kurdish militias or ISIS not in their country durang a blast or a attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.246.105.242 (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Well then,

I'm told to open a discussion here about the new map. We have a new map for the Syrian civil war, which is much more accurate and has the highest possible resolution, since it's a SVG-file (Scalable Vector Graphics). Since it's not possible to zoom in by clicking, I added a description how to zoom in (ctrl and scroll with the mouse) at the file's description.

The old file has many flaws: The frontlines are very inaccurate in most parts far away from where it would be at the Template (the new file is very exact, because Inkscape allows to insert a screenshot temporarily), there are fantasy marks (for example some IS-towns in southeastern Hasakah governorate), there are three different types of design for the SDF marks, there are white stains near the city names, and the list goes on.

To be honest, I'm a bit frustrated. I invested some days in creating this map and it shows the situation of the Template very exactly. And this is the second time now it's being removed without even a reason (since the first one was simply wrong; it's not my fault if people don't read in the description how to zoom in).

However, is anyone against adding the new map to the infobox?

Greetings, Ermanarich (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Nice map, can you make same map for Iraqi civil war? Beshogur (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Even if the new format has advantages, continuing to use the existing map retains the history of changes throughout the war. For this reason, I would suggest not changing the filename. 2601:144:C101:9790:AD73:F33B:65EB:FF30 (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Ermanarich's map doesn't merely "have its advantages"; it's massively more detailed and accurate. Just look at the placement of hilltops in Latakia, or the size of the East Gouta pocket (your preferred map ignores the results of months of fighting). It's also a far more realistic depiction of the territory reasonably held by the New Syrian Army group along the Jordanian/Iraqi border; there's simply no comparison. Restoring it immediately. Albrecht (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

For the history, I see your point. But we could simply make up a link to the Syrian Civil War's history in the file's description. Another reason by the way to use the newer version is, that it can easily be changed without loss of quality.

@Beshogur: I will probably create that map at some point in the future, but it will definitely take some time. Apart from that, I'd like to add a street overlay for the map, as it is at the Syrian Civil War's Template first. It looks much better and is easier to edit then.--Ermanarich (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

From what I saw, you did a very good job. It was much more accurate than the current version, which overstated SDF gains and rebel gains north of Aleppo. Eik Corell (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Why Western Golan is marked under al-Nusra Front control?GreyShark (dibra) 16:55, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

That's just if you download and open it with Inkscape. For some reason I really don't know, the stripes aren't visible then. But if you open it at Wikipedia, the stripes are visible, at least for me.--Ermanarich (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I do see it as white with stripes. What is the meaning of the white color (a-Nusra Front?) This is clearly a mistake - the Western Golan is so far not an arena of the Syrian War, and certainly doesn't belong to al-Nusra. We have discussed this multiple times in the past.GreyShark (dibra) 07:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That's right, it's actually occupied by Israel. I originally chose this so that it shows that it's a territory belonging to Syria but that it's status is disputed. But you have your point, this may be very confusing. Shall I change it to grey as the surrounding countries are?--Ermanarich (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The control of Israel over Western Golan is preceding the Syrian Civil War by 44 years, so whether it belongs to Ba'athist Syria, Syrian Opposition, Israel or another claimant - it is not the arena of the war and should be outside of the scope of war map (unless it becomes such). It could have a striped feature (if possible), but shouldn't have one of the colors of war parties. Either grey as the surrounding areas, as it used to be in png map, or very delicate grey shade striping.GreyShark (dibra) 06:52, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

And one more thing... Another IP changed the map back without explanation and is also not answering. For me, this immense contra against the map is really frustrating, and I actually don't know what to do now...--Ermanarich (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I've restored your version — perhaps we should request

Template:Syrian Civil War infobox to prevent anonymous edits against the consensus. Albrecht (talk

) 20:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes the Golan is disputed area, but it is not disputed or part of the Syrian Civil War. But as you mark the Golan Heights, at least give it a clear fill color (separate than white); also in the legend include note that this map color is to Israel held Golan, at least distinguish it from Nusra.Yohananw (talk) 13:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It will be included in the next upload. I guess it makes the map only more complicated, if I make up another colour there , so I will only make it grey. The multiple borders have to be enough.--Ermanarich (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Since Israel's flag has a lot of blue in it and none of the Syrian Civil War factions are in blue, some shade of blue (with or without stripes) would probably be best. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

With respect, that is a terrible suggestion: the Golan is, de facto, not part of Syria, and therefore grey like all other foreign territory -- adding another colour to the map and legend will only complicate and confuse an image that already struggles to depict a wide array of factions. Albrecht (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

The Western Golan is not an arena of the Syrian War up to this moment, so adding it to "Syrian Civil War map" is a terrible WP:FRINGE to confuse readers. It has been a solid consensus that Syria can claim the Western Golan and thus Western Golan should appear on Syria's geographic maps as striped area, while it should not be colored as belligerent colors on "Syrian Civil War map"s.GreyShark (dibra) 15:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The Golan heights are Syrian territory occupied by Israel, that's not in dispute. Why we would just forget it because it's inconvenient is beyond me. On a map of the Ukrainian situation, is Crimea just part of Russia because it's easier? No, and none of us even need to go check to know that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.182.5 (talk) 04:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

According to this: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/china-enters-fray-in-syria-on-bashar-al-assad-s-side-1.2764979

and other news, China now promises limited non-interventionist support for the Syrian government. Should we add China under "Support" alongside Iraq and North Korea now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BountyFlamor (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Read

WP:CRYSTALBALL.GreyShark (dibra

) 19:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Erm, a literal announcement of support by official state organs is about as far from crystaballism as you can get. My only reservation is the extent to which this includes military cooperation — China is being coy about this, so it's best to wait until this is confirmed. (Although I'm always amazed at the shifting standards of evidence; Cuba and North Korea persisted in the Infobox on the strength of sheer tabloid journalism until very recently). Albrecht (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I support the North Syria Federation. Should you add me to the infobox? Now seriously, declartational support is not eligible to be included in the infobox. We need some solid evidence for Chinese actual physical support, otherwise those are just empty words, stated already by multiple countries.GreyShark (dibra) 17:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Your support may consist of "empty words," China's does not: "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." Albrecht (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Good point - seems like it is a valid source to justify Chinese inclusion as supporter of Ba'athist Syrian Republic.GreyShark (dibra) 20:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Support in the Security Council isn't empty words. By the way, there is some evidence for North Korea involvement:[3][4].--Jack Upland (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

These sources cite "a representative of a Syrian opposition delegation" and the notorious "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights"; hardly convincing or compelling testimony. One source admits that "there [have] been [no] concrete examples of North Korean soldiers fighting in the ongoing civil war" and that "the evidence is not conclusive." The evidence for a pre-existing military relationship is much more concrete, but it's important to distinguish this from active support in the SCW. I'd like to see some more-or-less independent confirmation of these 10-15 Arabic-speaking DPRK 'advisors.' Albrecht (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right about SOHR being notorious, even its article here on Wikipedia is recently made notoriously biased. Some better refs for Chinas emerging involvement must exist. SaintAviator lets talk 23:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The difference is that the North Koreans are alleged to be there by (unreliable) third parties, without any proof; the Chinese have themselves announced the presence of their advisors. If these advisors are sufficient to be listed as a supporter, then I could agree to the inclusion of China. Albrecht (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree. SaintAviator lets talk 22:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Turkey is part of the coalition against ISIS, arguably the most important after US. Should be added asap. Mozad655 (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Turkey is listed as a direct belligerent on the side of the opposition, which is also fighting ISIS. The problem with the coalition is that it's vaguely represented as a co-belligerent of the YPG; since Turkey is (arguably) primarily fighting the YPG, it would be extremely inappropriate/counter-intuitive to list it there. Albrecht (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Turkey is hammering IS, so it should be in. SaintAviator lets talk 00:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Turkey is fighting the Kurds. It is clearly aligned with and supporting the opposition. Keeping Turkey in the opposition does not infer that Turkey isn't 'hammering IS'. DylanLacey (talk) 02:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Turkeys role is not straight forward SaintAviator lets talk 22:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

These are in the Lead, no ref, vague (20 - 40 %) and way outta date. "As of February 2016, the government held 40% of Syria, ISIL held around 20–40%, Arab rebel groups (including al-Nusra Front) 20%, and 15–20% is held by the Syrian Democratic Forces. Both the Syrian Democratic Forces and the Syrian Army have made recent gains against ISIL". SaintAviator lets talk 22:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Not only is the territorial situation very fluid—which makes maintaining these figures difficult at best,

WP:OR at worst—but the current formulation ignores the purpose of the "Territorial changes" field: this is intended to illustrate territory that has changed hands at the conclusion of a conflict, usually via peace treaty (i.e. in the Franco-Prussian War, Germany annexed Alsace-Lorraine). Strictly speaking, there have been no territorial changes in Syria, as Syria's internationally recognized borders remain the same. Albrecht (talk

) 14:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Re 'there have been no territorial changes in Syria' etc. Thats a clever perspective I missed. Removing. SaintAviator lets talk 22:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Tranngocnhatminh needs blocking SaintAviator lets talk 09:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Most articles refer to the article with caps in the text and it has a defined name which is used in all sources. Major conflicts with a defined name are Capitalized. MarkiPoli (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@MarkiPoli: See the ongoing move review. It's not closed yet — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The main article at

Massive agree. The true Cold War (are we really heading in the absurd direction of calling it "Cold War I?") had a generation of historiography and cultural awareness behind the name; "Cold War II" strikes me as

WP:RECENTISM of the most egregious variety. We should not be consecrating/legitimizing the pseudo-concepts spawned by our notoriously impoverished clickbait culture. Albrecht (talk

) 17:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree kill it. SaintAviator lets talk 22:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

With the conflicts in the Middle East and the war in Donbass, is it fear-mongering to say that a limited Cold War has started? For, to a certain degree, present US policy does appear to reflect US policy of the 1950's and 60's. 79.71.243.48 (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not for us to decide. While an interesting concept, this doesn't seem like a widespread belief. At least not yet. Eik Corell (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

In just a few days before US Special Forces Ground Forces soldiers came under fire near the town of Tel Abyad in the same province of Aleppo. However, the fire was opened on them not Islamists - the bullets were flying from the Turkish border, reports ABC News

https://ria.ru/syria/20160917/1477188161.html + video (+tank's).

This is the beginning of the war the United States in Syria. How soon will the loss? (Turkey has). How many such collisions has been a total of ?&?

loss list

(create a new chapter)

1 US (out of combat) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11049814/The-failed-US-mission-to-try-and-rescue-James-Foley-from-Islamic-State-terrorists.html +http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Marine-is-first-US-death-in-operations-against-Islamic-State/articleshow/44263023.cms

1 UAV shot down and 1 aircraft (but Jordan) has fallen due to a technical failure, Pilotta was executed in captivity (burned down to death). http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2326626 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.162.80.217 (talk) 13:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Russian media inform today 17th of September 2016 (in Russian) about 62 Syrian soldiers killed by air-strike from USA jets (2 F-16 and 2 A-10) near the SAA held and surrounded by ISIL forces city and air-base Deir ez Zor. ^{[1] [2]} Here is the same news in English: ^{[3] [4] [5] [6]} It looks like ISIL forces were ready and waited for air-strike, because they attacked immediately after and took the strategical high point nearby air-base: the Tharda mountain. Here is the map: ^[7] Now SAA regain the control over the Tharda mountain after counter-attack suffering additional losses/ ^[8]

Western and Arabic media mainly silent about these shocking news: it's a info-blast - USA-led coalition aviation strike against Syrian government army (or Syrian Arab Army - SAA) and helped ISIL a lot!!! Here is the explanation about USA Air Force mistake: ^[9] And the USA denial document (scan): ^[10] - they insist it was just a mistake, the air-strike was stopped after Russians informed them about the SAA loses.

The same kind of air-strike had been reported by Russian media 6th of December 2015: ^[11] and went generally unnoticed by other media but covered here: Airstrike_on_Saeqa_military_camp_near_Deir_ez-Zor ^[12] Here some ideas about Persian Gulf kingdoms' jets participation in previous air-strike: ^{[13] [14]}

Please! Put it in the article, such a censorship as we see now in media should be not a case for Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.73.44.179 (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are some more links to Reuters web-site for confirmation of the news above: ^{[15] [16] [17]} 95.73.44.179 (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems there is an interest in not puting such important news in the Wikipedia. Such high number of casualties, happening in the middle of a ceasefire, deserves not to be silenced. Green beret1972 (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Why are there no capital letters on Civil War like in these articles? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.25.39 (talk) 06:35, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This matter has been discussed countless times in the past and the title has been changed like half a dozen times now, because everytime there is a different consensus. I'm sure that most editors here are already tired of this and just want to stay with the status quo for now. 79.246.25.224 (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually the matter is still under discussion, unfortunately, at

WP:RELIABLESOURCEs do not capitalise Syrian Civil War consistently. That said, it's quite likely the move review may overturn back to a caps version. We shall see.  — Amakuru (talk

) 09:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

17:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark76 (talk • contribs)

It's still there. The map is now on a new page named

Têkilî min

) 00:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This edit of mine is being contended. My reason for the rewriting is that all responsible parties have denied purposely targeting the Syrian military, and the previous version implies that was indeed intentional by leaving out said by by omitting said clarifications. Eik Corell (talk) 19:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

While not involved in this edit conflict, I'm not at all comfortable with your formulation of "a botched airstrike" as established fact: all we know for certain is that SAA positions were hit — the Coalition has denied doing this deliberately, but that is a statement of position, not a fact. It's perfectly acceptable to cite the U.S. position on this incident, but let's make the attribution clear. Albrecht (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Albrecht, and Eik Corell I am comfortable with a statement attributed to US officials that says the airstrike was an accident. -Darouet (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Might be beating a dead horse but can someone take the initiative to move this page back to

This issue is being discussed here. Charles Essie (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Done Charles Essie (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Charles Essie: thumbs up for finally getting done with this saga!GreyShark (dibra) 13:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

It is so obvious that US forces support YPG, even American forces are with them shoulder to shoulder, American forces took YPG bandages to their arms. YPG waved US flag and also there are allegations about the incident, "a US officer did it" said a YPG fighter to a newspaper. Karak1lc1k (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The reasoning here appears to be that the U.S. is already listed as a co-belligerent of the YPG, which also implies support (thus, on the government side, Iran and Russia do not appear as "supporters", as they are already listed as belligerents.) Albrecht (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree - the US, Russia and Iraqi Kurdistan support the YPG at various levels, including airstrikes, logistics and advisory.GreyShark (dibra) 13:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

We conducted the interview ten days ago with a commander of the al-Qaida branch “Jabhat al-Nusra”. Abu al-Ezz reported quite openly about his financiers Saudi-Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait. We were able to exactly research the identity of the man and know practically every-thing about him.

A rebel from Aleppo arranged the interview. I have had contacts to Syrian rebels for years. It was conducted outside of Aleppo in a quarry in direct sight- and shooting-distance of Jabhat al-Nusra and could only be reached safely by a member of al-Nusra.

His fighters were partially not masked, i.e. easily identifiable [bespeaking confidence]. Part of his statements were nearly verbally confirmed shortly thereafter by a mufti in Aleppo. Other assertions about the lack of interest of rebels towards a ceasefire and an international aid-convoy also bore out. Just like his predictions about planned military activities in several cities of Syria.

Abu al-Ezz, commander, says about Jabhat al-Nusra (al-Qaeda): “We are one part of al-Qaeda. Our principles are: Fighting vice, pureness and securi-ty. Our affairs and our way have changed. Israel, for example, is now sup-porting us, because Israel is at war [apparently DESPITE official state-ments] with Syria and with Hizbullah. America also changed its opinion about us. Originally “

IS

” [ISIS, DAESH; formerly al-Qaeda in Iraq] and us were one group. But “IS” was used in the interests of big states like America, for political reasons, and was steered away from our principles. [That is, according to the Nusra fighter, the U.S. was supporting ISIS.] It became clear to us that most of their leaders work with secret security services [of the Western powers, presumably, based on textual context]. We, Jabhat al-Nusra, have our own way. In the past they with us, they were our supporters.

Our aim is the downfall of the dictatorial, tyrannical regime, [which is] the regime of the apostate. Our aim is the conduct of conquests, as [the great Arab general] Khaled ibn al-Walid made them: first in the Arab world and then in Europe.

Yes, the U.S. supports the opposition, but not directly. They support the countries that support us. But we are not yet satisfied with this support. They should support us with highly developed weapons. We have won battles thanks to the “TOW” missiles. We reached a balance with the regime through these missiles [which, according to mainstream reports (i.e., the Washington Post), were delivered to northern Syrian rebels by the CIA, under a U.S.-sponsored program]. We received the tanks from Libya through Turkey. We also received the “BMs” – multiple rocket launchers. The regime excels us only with their fighter jets, missiles and missile launchers. We captured a share of its missile launchers and a large share came from abroad. But it is through the American “TOW” that we have the situation in some regions under control.

The missiles were given directly to us. They were delivered to a certain group. When the “road” was closed and we were besieged we had officers here from Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the United States.

What did those officers do? Experts! Experts for the use of satellites, missiles, reconnaissance work, thermal surveillance cameras …

Were there also American experts?

Yes, experts from several countries.

For example we were told: We must capture and conquer “Battalion 47″. Saudi Arabia gave us 500 million Syrian pounds. For taking the “al-Muslimiya” infantry school years ago we received from Kuwait 1.5 mil-lion Kuwaiti dinar and from Saudi Arabia 5 million U.S. dollars.

From the governments or from private persons?

From the governments.

The West only sends us mujahedin and facilitates the way of those fighters. Why doesn’t the West support us properly? [Note: everything else he said indicates that it does.] We have many fighters from Germany, France, Great Britain, America, from all western countries.

What do you think about the ceasefire?

We do not recognize the ceasefire. We will reposition our groups. We will undertake in the next, in a few days an overwhelming attack against the re-gime. We have rearranged all our armed forces in all provinces, in Homs, Aleppo, Idlib and Hama.

You do not want those 40 trucks with aid supplies to bring those into the eastern part of Aleppo?

We have demands. As long as the regime is positioned along Castello road, in al-Malah and in the northern areas we will not let those [humanitarian aid] trucks pass. The regime must retreat from all areas in order for us to let the trucks pass. If a truck comes in despite that we will arrest the driver.

Why did a few of your groups pull back a kilometer or 500 meters from the Castello road?

The regime used highly developed weapons against us. We received a back-lash. That is why we silently retreated, to recover and to attack the regime anew. But this attack must lead to the downfall of the regime.

So that was a trick, a military tactic?

Yes, it was a military tactic.

Was the aim of this tactic to receive food or the reallocation of fighters?

We did not agree to the ceasefire.

Does that hold only for the al-Nusra Front or for all other groups, the rest of your allies?

This applies to all our integrated groups, who are our allies.

What about the Islamic Front, Islamic Army [groups in northern Syria affiliated with the Free Syrian Army]?

They are all with us. We are all the al-Nusra Front. A group is created and calls itself “Islamic Army”, or “Fateh al-Sham”. Each group has its own name but their belief is homogeneous. The general name is al-Nusra Front. One person has, for example, 2,000 fighters. Then he creates from these a new group and calls it “Ahrar al-Sham”. They are brothers whose beliefs, thoughts and aims are identical to those of al-Nusra Front.

Is that your own opinion or also the opinion of higher management levels? That is the general opinion. But if someone comes to you and makes you a ‘moderate fighter’ and offers you to eat and to drink, will you accept that or not?

450,000 people were killed in this war. I have been to Aleppo and Homs. Many parts are destroyed. If the war continues the whole country will be de-stroyed. Millions will die. … In Germany we once had the ‘Thirty Years’ War’ …

We are now only five years at war; that is comparatively short! [Note: the North Vietnamese fought for thirty years and were victorious in the end.]

Would you accept someone from the Assad-regime within a transitional government?

We accept no one from the Assad regime or from the Free Syrian Army, which is called moderate. Our aim is the downfall of the regime and the founding of an Islamic state according to the Islamic sharia.

The people of Aloush, who traveled to Geneva for negotiations, accepted a transitional government.

There are Syrian mercenaries. Aloush fights with the al-Nusra Front. The groups Turkey houses and from which the Free Syrian Army was created have earlier been with al-Nusra Front. These people are weak people; they received a lot of money and sold themselves. They must follow the or-ders of their sponsors. [The al-Nusra Front and its allies, according to the same account, receive money, weapons, and training from the foreign sponsors.]

The “Islamic Army and the “Islamic Front” negotiate in Geneva.

Their leaders were produced in the West. They are counseled and paid by western secret services and the secret services of the Gulf to fulfill the aims of those countries. [According to other parts of this account the al-Nusra Front and its allies do likewise.]

https://southfront.org/todenhofer-interview-with-al-nusra-commander-the-americans-stand-on-our-side/

Unless this were true, al-Qaeda-linked rebels would not openly be bragging about being associated with the apostate West and even Israel, especially as it is in a rivalry with other jihadist groups and ISIS...

By the way, you can question the bias of the link, but the interview comes from a reliable German newspaper, as the source notes. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda is not a reliable source, neither is South Front. I suggest getting more well-known sources before drastically changing things. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

What a nonsense.GreyShark (dibra) 13:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

FSA is included right at the top under the info box for the opposition, but if you click on the link for the FSA, the Wikipedia article refers to FSA in past tense. Shouldn't we include a more dated timeline such as: FSA (2011 - 2012) or something like that.

From my understanding the majority of those in the so-called FSA have joined terrorist groups like al-Nusra or ISIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.18.64 (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

For example, Islamic Front is listed as "Islamic Front (2013-2015)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.18.64 (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The entire FSA component of the Infobox is in need of urgent overall. As I remarked yesterday ("FSA commanders in Infobox," above), the FSA commanders are all either out of date or marginal figures whose role in the conflict is impossible to verify. In addition,

I observed some time ago that the given strength of "50,000" is completely spurious, as the source in question is referring to all Saudi-sponsored militant groups, not FSA groups in particular. Another point is that Army of Conquest-affiliated groups almost certainly outnumber non-AoC-groups, so AoC should arguably be listed first. Albrecht (talk

) 21:21, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The central FSA command still exists, but it only controlled the factions in 2011 and 2012. Regardless, numerous rebel groups still call themselves the FSA so we shouldn't just remove it. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:48, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing the FSA entirely would be extreme, but there needs to be some effort to remodel the Infobox in line with realities on the ground. Removing obsolete commanders and an inflated strength figure would be a start. Albrecht (talk) 14:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Albrecht if you proposed some of those changes concretely here, providing refs, that'd be helpful. -Darouet (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

See above: most FSA commanders have not held any verified command in years, while the FSA strength figure is clearly erroneous. At the end of the day it's also an editorial decision: we obviously can't list every commander of every armed group in Syria, so why are marginal FSA figures given such disproportionate space? Albrecht (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, an informed and concrete proposal would be helpful. -Darouet (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, my first two concrete proposals would be, 1) remove the erroneous figure of 50,000 for FSA strength (see justification

here) until something better can be found; 2) limit FSA to one commander, as per other major rebel groups. This would involve the removal of four figures (see my candidates in "FSA commanders in Infobox," above). Albrecht (talk

) 17:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

In the map legend should be used the most widespread in the sources and recognizable name - i.e Al-Nusra Front or al-Qaeda in the Levant, not Jabhat Fateh al-Sham - as ISIL, but not Daesh, for exemple. As it was before, but then for some reason it changed. 87.252.229.38 (talk) 01:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a discussion taking place here that might effect this page. Charles Essie (talk) 21:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

What a sorry state of affairs: who are these people? What is their verified political and military weight on the ground? Do they even exist?

• Albay Ahmed Berri
  : Brigadier-General. Virtually no combat history. No known units under his command. Current location unknown. Position may be unrecognized.
• Riad al-Asaad: Colonel. Living in Turkey since 2011. Apparently relieved of command in 2012. No combat history.
• Salim Idris: Brigadier General. Possibly located in Qatar or Turkey. Removed from position in 2014. No combat history.
• Abdul-Ilah al-Bashir al-Noeimi: Removed from position in 2014. Virtually no combat history. Ignored by FSA's U.S. sponsors.

When formidable fighting formations like Jabhat al-Nusra or Ahrar al-Sham are allotted one commander apiece, it's totally aberrant to bloat the Infobox with such a long list of nonentities and paper-pushers. Frankly, the leader of an ultra-small (but actually fighting) group like Jund al-Aqsa carries more weight than any of the above. Albrecht (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. All of these commanders, along with the prime minister of the Syrian Interim Government, are merely political figures living in Turkey with no real control of the rebel forces on the ground. I've replaced them with two actual FSA commanders of large groups (or formerly large groups) that fought on the ground: Bashar al-Zoubi and Jamal Maarouf. Editor abcdef (talk) 07:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. The Southern Front commander is a great replacement, considering this is the single largest remaining FSA formation (if fairly static/truce-bound). Albrecht (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

' ... Turkey had effectively transformed the secret US arms programme in support of moderate rebels, ... '

Is there any detail on this programme? If not, here's possibly a helpful link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-begins-weapons-delivery-to-syrian-rebels/2013/09/11/9fcf2ed8-1b0c-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html Beingsshepherd (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Beingsshepherd: thanks, I hadn't seen this WP piece. We have an article on at least one program involved in this (Timber Sycamore), though there are likely others. -Darouet (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems every single group fighting in Syria now, however minor and short lived, have articles created for them, and it is simply pointless and not notable. We should have some criteria for creating such articles. Number of members, influence, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you give an example of what you mean? I would think that an armed group fighting in a civil war is inherently notable, regardless of its size (note also that numerical strength isn't a good barometer of efficiency; see Jund al-Aqsa). There has been some back-and-forth on which groups should be included in the Infobox, which is probably a fairer point (on the government side, it's baffling that, say, the PFLP-GC is listed instead of Liwaa al-Quds, as far as Palestinian militias go). Albrecht (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to take a random example, "Liwa al-Haqq (Idlib)". There are tonnes of such stubs. Every single tiny faction doesn't need an article just because it has a name. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It's true that there's been a mass proliferation of (mostly FSA) groups through attrition, mergers, schisms, and re-brandings, as well as groups that are likely only marginal/paper formations (TOW recipients). I think our prime concern is that these groups be documented accurately and not given undue weight. Albrecht (talk) 17:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Until the Arab Winter article is more than a glorified stub, I wonder if it can be, for now, removed from the war box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:6824:C1C:1FF0:7A73 (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I think we can remove it with roughly the same rationale as removing "Cold War II". Albrecht (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Can whoever has access do so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:DCEB:DC4F:7E41:8296:8678 (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Disagree - a valid linkGreyShark (dibra) 07:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

According to Russian sources, the Kuznetsov naval group began military operations on Syrian territories [5].GreyShark (dibra) 13:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Tidied prose in the lead and first section but stopped as it would be a Sisyphean task to continue. The copious citations and references seem to me to be somewhat biased towards proxy organisations beholden to US state goodwill, I suggest that the article could be improved by giving more space to other biases, if objective sources are lacking. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Major Western news outlets — what are conventionally known here as

Washington Post published an ominous piece about the military supremacy of Iranian/Shia militias on the battlefield (echoing the well-known themes of Salafist propaganda), mere hours before a major offensive involving zero Shia militias broke the back of the rebel forces in Aleppo. It really gets ludicrous at times. Albrecht (talk

) 00:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@

August 2016 discussion).GreyShark (dibra

) 07:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Also @BountyFlamor:.GreyShark (dibra) 07:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@

May 2016 discussion.GreyShark (dibra

) 07:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

There's not enough to justify listing it here. The reports of North Korean troops are now months old. If the story was true I would expect some follow-up. North Korea is, however, mentioned in

Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War, and I think this is appropriate.--Jack Upland (talk

) 07:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Rumours are not enough for inclusion. FunkMonk (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• As per above (and my own previous statements), there needs to be a higher burden of proof than "so-and-so said." There's also a difference, I will observe, between a pre-existing (commercial) military relationship and "support" in the context of the SCW. Albrecht (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If North Korea was really supplying troops to Syria that would be big news, and until then its just a rumor. Legacypac (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The fact that Turkey never did support al nusra (no source about it). They still do support other groups within the army of conquest (like ahrar sham and al zenki). Witch means that Turkey still does support the group. The used sources only mentioned that Turkey wants the al nusra out of aleppo+Turkey recognized Al nusra as a terrorists group since 2014 Hakan3400 (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• This was transferred from talk:Syrian Civil War infobox redirect page.GreyShark (dibra) 08:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)