Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 50

the Anadolu Agency reported that Egypt sent troops to help Assad^[1] but, the SOHR say that they didn't so, who is right.^[2]--Garmin21 (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Anadolu Agency generally isn't a reliable source when it comes to this. SOHR takes precedence in this case, and mention of Egypt should be removed. 2601:85:C102:1220:2001:5231:1A85:9198 (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

ok I'll remove it.--Garmin21 (talk) 03:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

SOHR is more reliable than the Anadolu Agency. Wowzers122 (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Egypt still hasn't been removed. I can't remove it because I am an IP. 2601:85:C102:1220:F8C8:7972:A182:48A0 (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Israel has admitted to funding 12 rebel groups and has continued to attack Syria Farbne (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Source?--Garmin21 (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Israel should have been added to the map a long time ago. It occupies part of Syria and has been involved in the war including support of al Qaida groups and bombings.

https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/report-israel-treating-al-qaida-fighters-wounded-in-syria-civil-war-393862

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-chief-acknowledges-long-claimed-weapons-supply-to-syrian-rebels/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-israel-armed-rebels-in-south-syria-for-years-in-effort-to-block-iran/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/13/deadliest-israeli-air-strikes-on-syria-in-years-kill-57-say-observers

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

If you want to add Israel then you would have to add Turkey, Iran, and Iraq on to the map because they have had a much more prominent role in the civil war then Israel.--Garmin21 (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Turkey is already in the map showing that it is occupying part of Syria. Same with US. Neither Iran or Iraq are occupying parts of Syria. Israel is. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

So you'd want to make it like LiveUAmap with Israel in blue showing to Golan or something like that.--Garmin21 (talk) 16:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, that's how it should be.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

If you want to add the Golan go head.--Garmin21 (talk) 18:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Israel's control over the Golan Heights is irrelevant to what is going on in Syria today. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources disagree: . All of these events are directly related to the Syrian war and the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights. Wikipedia must follow the reliable sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Israel most certainly belongs in the infobox as supporting the rebels, but it shouldn't be on the map. Israel armed southern rebels and Islamists, but they never took over physical land during the war. 2601:85:C102:1220:A054:120E:7921:9C4E (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The Syrian government never took over the physical land of Suwayda or the coastal line during the war. Yet the map shows these areas controlled by the Syrian government Same thing should apply to the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousnes: Are you saying that Syria's coastline is not controlled by the Syrian government? If so, then by whom? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

They are, but they didn't take control of it during the war.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Supreme Deliciousnes: I don't understand your argument. The Syrian government controls the coastline, but not thanks to the rebels... Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone! It is now 10 years, since the Syrian civil war did not ended. President Assad is not defeated yet, but he is got the Covid-19, and he is survived. The Syrian civil war is 10 years old now, becuase it's started in March 15, 2011, and it's now March 15, 2021. We need to fix the Syrian civil war's page, today, it is 10 years old now, and it's 10 years Anniversary, Assad would be 56 years old, and he is not stopped, and not defeated yet. The syrian people are coming in Europe, and the other countries, because of the civil war. That's all, have nice day everyone! --TomFZ67 (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

I understand and support the need for stability at Wikipedia. No intrinsic problem here. Yet the current name of this high-visibility article does hurt Wikipedia. The name implies that there were many civil wars in Syria and our article is not about the Syrian Civil War but about civil war in general in Syria. The article, however, is about a specific civil war, the Syrian Civil War. Getting such a basic convention wrong hurts our reputation among the information platforms. I would like to share my argument in a FUTURE discussion and do not need agrees and disagrees with it now. I'm sure others will make excellent points as well. My CURRENT PROPOSAL is 100% procedural.

Please put support below if you believe that, for any reason, the Wikipedia community should immediately hold a consensual Requested Move discussion for this article. Put oppose if you oppose. This is a PROCEDURAL discussion. It's absolutely fine to support a discussion if you oppose a move and vice versa. Please focus any arguments on holding a discussion, NOT on the correct name. With sufficient support, the next discussion would be on everyone's name preferences. gidonb (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support as I want this discussion opened. AvalonXD (talk) 18:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Charles Essie (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Shrek 5 the divorce (talk) 21:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per previous discussions. "Syrian Civil War" is not a proper name. Beshogur (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Beshogur. We're not discussing a name right now, just if we should hold a discussion right after about the article's name. Can you confirm (or change) your preference in light of this question? gidonb (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Gidonb: I didn't understand the purpose of the discussion at all, can you elaborate more what we are going to discuss? Seems like a waste of time. Beshogur (talk) 11:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Beshogur, there is a large group of people here who want to have the opportunity to discuss the name. It is currently blocked by governance (i.e. not policy) considerations. Are you supportive of holding a new discussion to reach a wider consensus? gidonb (talk)

• Support per above. It's incredible that it's come to this. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's still not a proper name. 217.32.179.153 (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi 217.32.179.153. We're not discussing a name right now, just if we should hold a discussion right after about the article's name. Can you confirm (or change) your preference in light of this question? gidonb (talk) 00:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it's absurd that a procedural discussion should require the consent of those who oppose a move. Of course they'll refuse to go along with that, especially in light of the fact that the previous move discussions were procedurally closed over formalities rather than consensus. There is no Wikipedia policy to prevent a new discussion, even if those who support the current title will fiercely resist it. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

There was clear consensus, and nothing has changed in regards to the media's usage, so no new discussion is needed. Most reliable sources recognize that it isn't a proper name. 217.32.179.153 (talk) 13:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Mikrobølgeovn, for the most part, I agree but there will be those who will wish you "a day in court" even while disagreeing with you. Never discount the ability of Wikipedians to come up with (even more) original reasoning! It will not be everyone. This anon is not able to make a procedural claim without tying it to a position on content matter, but did get a procedural claim organized. gidonb (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Nothing has changed in the past 11 months. It didn't become a proper name in that time, so a new discussion is not warranted. 217.32.179.153 (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I rest my case. gidonb (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

This case was already settled three years before that. Syrian Civil War was the consensus until someone brought it again and closed the discussion because a the technicality. This is a reasonable request. Charles Essie (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Please WITHOUT possible outcomes for now! Charles Essie, your argument in favor of a discussion is that the naming question was settled long ago and was overturned by an incidental forum? 217.32.179.153, your argument against another discussion is that the naming question has just been settled and should be left alone for now? Please confirm! gidonb (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes. If usage had remotely changed in the past 11 months, a new discussion would be warranted. But it hasn't. So. 217.32.179.153 (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I suppose that's part of my argument. Charles Essie (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I originally had in mind a much bigger name discussion that could settle this and any future discussions of this nature for other articles. Charles Essie (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Quoting from recent discussion on the name of the First Nagorno-Karabakh War: "[A]re we really going to revisit and fastidiously investigate each and every one of: First Sudanese Civil War, Second Sudanese Civil War, First Congo War, Second Congo War, and various others, and arguably even the uppercase Somali Civil War and Lebanese Civil War and Sri Lankan Civil War (and Algerian, and Angolan, and Burundian, and Guatemalan, and ...) vs. the apparently solitary case of lowercase Syrian civil war. That way lies madness. An encyclopedia needs titles for its entries, and coins titles if necessary. Titles of wars normally use capital-W War by the usual conventions of the English language, so the lowercase "w" frankly looks a bit silly in that context. Why on Earth should we be so terrified that someone might take a conventionally-capitalized title for a proper noun, to such an extent that we would defy normal English title conventions and spend endless time debating such issues." Sladnick (talk) 20:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Sladnick. This discussion, however, is about holding a new discussion, which is currently not possible without it getting shut down. Do you support allowing a new discussion? If so, what are the procedural reasons for this support? gidonb (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

The last discussion reached a conclusion incompatible with the basic conventions of the English language. Some extraorindary debate would have been necessary to take such a step, but this was not done, only a limited discussion. Sladnick (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Strong Support Never understood why this article is titled “civil war” in lower caps, while other articles have civil war capitalized. Ridax2020 (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Ridax2020. This discussion, however, is about holding a new discussion, which is currently not possible without it getting shut down. Do you support allowing a new discussion? If so, what are the procedural reasons for this support? gidonb (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support I was just wondering this. Unless there are other Syrian civil wars that this civil war could be confused with, it doesn't make sense not to capitalize. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Royal Autumn Crest. This discussion, however, is about holding a new discussion, which is currently not possible without it getting shut down. Do you support allowing a new discussion? If so, what are the procedural reasons for this support? gidonb (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I support allowing a new discussion and I think the procedural reason has been mentioned above repeatedly and that is standardization. It doesn't make sense for civil war to not be capitalized in the title here and civil war to be capitalized in comparable civil wars. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support per above. The Verified Cactus 100% 18:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment gidonb What is going on with this? In just 8 days it will be a year since the last move, which occurred after a rushed discussion — only six people supported a move at the time! This was far too few to invent a whole new standard for naming wars, which is what that discussion effectively did even though it falsely claimed to be implementing an established norm. Sladnick (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sladnick, this is a request to hold a new community discussion, which is currently blocked. Any admin can close this as successful. I'm not an admin. gidonb (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

gidonb How long does that ban on new discussion last? What do they need to see here to allow it? I asked you because you seemed to be trying to guide this discussion. Sladnick (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I guide the discussion only when people talk about the correct name. This discussion is about the right to have a new RM. I cannot speak for admins. We will wait patiently until a lot of people ask for a new RM and hopefully such a request will be respected. gidonb (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

A lot of people have asked for a new RM. It is time to scrap a made-up rule, have a new discussion (this time an uninterrupted one), achieve an actual consensus and - hopefully - end the silliness and restore basic conventions of the English language. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support. The last discussion was closed far too quickly, and the continued debates on the talk page showcase that issues remain unadressed. Applodion (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support The entire push to make the Syrian Civil War into Syrian civil war was farcical. If there were a plethora of Syrian civil wars, then perhaps decapitalization would make sense, but there's only been one large civil war. Honestly, should we demote other wars: Russian civil war, American civil war, Spanish civil war, etc? Absurdity. We need another move discussion. 2601:85:C102:1220:2883:171C:E459:1206 (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there going to be a move discussion or is it going to stall forever? The uncapitalized title appears very silly, and this warrants a discussion.2601:85:C102:1220:2001:5231:1A85:9198 (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a good question. I'd start it myself but I want assurances that we have consensus for a new discussion before I do so. I don't want it to be immediately shut down. Charles Essie (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

With the exception of Jimmy Wales, no one has the right to shut down a discussion that is clearly warranted (and overdue). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Applodion, AvalonXD, Beshogur, Gidonb, Mikrobølgeovn, Ridax2020, Royal Autumn Crest, Shrek 5 the divorce, and Sladnick: I've started it. Charles Essie (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I see a lot of IPs putting the same argument above, this shouldn't be tolerated. One IP even reverted my edit twice because I tagged someone with SPA. Beshogur (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

That was me who reverted you, I am a dynamic IP as I have shown above, but I have only made two edits to the above discussion, and I don't plan on adding anymore. The text that starts with:"Many users here..." and "As per the guidelines..." are mine. I have no relation to the other IPs. But so as to clear any confusion, I reverted your edit because you were claiming an IP was a sockpuppet without any proof (they had never before edited any topic on this war). Nevertheless, there may now be sockpuppets joining the conversation. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:C433:1C0:9B8:9A33 (talk) 16:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Des Vallee has added Tahrir al-Sham as a supporter of the Syrian Interim Government and I reverted it when I saw. It was reverted again by Des Vallee and I wanted to bring it into a discussion to prevent an WP:EDITWAR. The Interim (Turkey) and Salvation (Tahrir al-Sham) are two different governments which both claim the governance of Idlib. --Dijkstra (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes but they both support each other, they often are at odds but are almost always allies. Governments can support multiple governments which Turkey does, HTS control almost all of Idlib and Turkey operates with them all the time. The citations proves this claim.

There can often be overlapping support as an example the Russia simultaneously now supports both the SDF and the SAA. The US also has overlapping support with as an example supporting the FSA in the south and the SDF. Des Vallee (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is designated as a terrorist group by Turkey, and Interim Government has never been supported by the HTS. The cooperations took place before the disintegration of Army of Conquest, which Turkey gave support and HTS was a part of it. --Dijkstra (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes they do, the Turkish government does constantly cooperate with the HTS, nearly the entirety of the M4 highway was controlled by the HTS, nearly all of Idlib is controlled by the HTS. It impossible for Turkey not to operate with the HTS. Turkey operates in the HTS area and openly fights alongside them. Evidence of this is utterly constant, and the sources, are endless like here, here, here, or here. Seriously, this isn't unknown information it's widely circulated and is all over the place, the most famous video of the SNA and Turkish occupation is with them in cooperation with the HTS. Des Vallee (talk) 05:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, I would appreciate it if you can add these sources to the article as well. It seems Turkey used HTS time to time despite the reactions of the rebels, but we still can't include HTS as a supporter of the Interim Government. As I've said before, HTS has its own government in Idlib and they've always been enemies with the Interim Government which also claims Idlib. Here are some sources about relations between the two governments: --Dijkstra (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@Mausebru: Again: Anonymous/Turkish/Syrian opposition claims do not prove that Egypt has deployed troops to Syria. Unless there is hard evidence, Egypt should be removed as a belligerent. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Yes, but Syrian/Iranian and even the U.S. alleges Egypt has joined, and Egypt deployed some 150 soldiers.Mausebru (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mausebru: Since you just spelled out that this is just an allegation so far, I assume you agree that Egypt should not be listed as a belligerent in this war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Only the U.S. alleges. Egypt officially sent troops. Look at the references I put there. Mausebru (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mausebru: I already looked at the sources. The first one cites Anadolu, a Turkish government-owned propaganda machine. The IranWire source cites Anadolu and the Syrian opposition, and actually spells out that the claims could not be verified (quote: "IranWire has not been able not confirm the authenticity of the information"). The Jerusalem Post and Al Jazeera articles mention nothing about troop deployment, and were written four years before the supposed "deployment" that only Anadolu knows about. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Then ill add it to the support collapsible list. Mausebru (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mausebru: That's more than fine. Cheers! :) Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Excuse me, but when I put the collapsible list, it's not appearing. Could you help me?Mausebru (talk) 17:43, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mausebru: No biggie, just fixed it. I'll leave it to you to pick which sources to add (we really should toss Anadolu). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Change non-working link in citation [109] from

"(UNHCR), United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. "UNHCR Syria Regional Refugee Response"."

to

"(3RP), Regional Refugee & Resilience Plan. "3RP Regional Strategic Overview 2018-2019"." Lerminator3 (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: Updated link to newer information from UNHCR. I couldn't find the 7,600,000 and 5,116,097 figures in the new link you provided. Alduin2000 (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Following on from the Afghanistan war situation map discussion where there was a strong consensus against using this kind of map due to original research and unreliable sourcing, we should use either a more reliably-sourced map (i.e., not one sourced in large part to an anonymous and unreliable Twitter feed) or images of the war similar to those used on other conflict history pages. For this reason I've deleted the situation map from the infobox as it fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR as a WP:BOLD edit. It would also be good, if a situation map is necessary (I'm not sure it is in such a static conflict as the war is at present) to have one that is more up-to-date. I've used an image of Raqqa as a place-holder, but a collage/montage similar to the one used for the war in Iraq (e.g., this) would be better. FOARP (talk) 09:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

As I did not see consensus on that discussion for removing the maps from other article infoboxes other than the Afghanistan article, I have boldly reverted the removal. Please start a discussion here first before making those changes. For the record, I feel that the sources used on the Syrian Civil War map are generally reliable enough to warrant its usage, particularly the edits that comprise the most recent version. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Change the casualty of total dead at the end of the infobox to include a new UN estimation of 350,000 dead. So something like 350,000-606,000 dead.

Here is the source:

https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/09/1101162

The UN estimate can be the lower bound while the SOHR (pro-rebel source) can remain as the upper bound. The UN estimate is worth mentioning, as they haven't released one in years. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:5CDE:6E25:EAEC:A888 (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC) 2601:85:C101:C9D0:5CDE:6E25:EAEC:A888 (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello? 2601:85:C101:C9D0:182C:8F22:E5A4:E9C7 (talk) 22:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Considering the sheer number of warning templates on this page, it's safe to say that this is a very contentious topic. I don't think altering the total death toll in any capacity is going to go unnoticed. While if what you say is true (as they haven't released one in years) I would agree on a personal level that it may be worthy of mention, any alteration to the statistics in the infobox that aren't corrections of blatant errors is probably going to need consensus. Especially if 2 or more reliable sources are purporting different tolls, as then the community needs to decide how they wish to handle that. After a consensus for this change has been made, either an editor with sufficient permissions can perform it, or this request can be re-opened. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Oh thanks for replying! There are a lot of RS reporting the UN's new estimation (low-end, if I might add), so I am confident that a consensus can be reached regarding its inclusion in the infobox. In order to reach a consensus, should I start another discussion on this page? Thanks in advance. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:4C9A:43F9:E415:ADCE (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

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

Request to add List of documentary films about the Syrian civil war as Template:Main under the section Syrian civil war#Documentaries 223.25.74.34 (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Done: That's a useful link addition - thanks for the suggestion. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

There is no way given to find reference 144: " Kelley, C. P., Mohtadi, S., Cane, M. A., Seager, R., & Kushnir, Y. (2015). Syria had also received in the same period around 1.5 million refugees from Iraq. By 2011, Syria was facing steep rises in the prices of commodities and a clear deterioration in the national standard of living." Where is this written?peter (talk) 23:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Googling the names and date gives this article, but I haven't checked it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Reference 176 has absolutely nothing to do with what is supposed to be citing beyond explaining what sarin gas does. Would it not meant to be proving that UN inspectors did confirm the use of sarin gas? 1.43.75.25 (talk) 07:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

please make an update. there have been +5 months. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 22:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Under the sub-heading of Casualties, the sentence beginning "Over 380,000 people were killed since the war in Syria started nine years ago..." is no longer valid. And will need to be updated every year since time keeps marching on.

Should read "Over 380,000 people were killed since the war in Syria started in 2011..." Livepsycle (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

My suggestion is to remedy that bias. 2600:1014:B121:75BD:7E7E:F4ED:45D3:C02D (talk) 03:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no evidence for Saudi and Qatari support for ISIL. Saudi Arabia was alleged by Iran, Iraq, and Qatar to support ISIL, which they denied. Qatri support for ISIL is alleged by Saudi Arabia and their allies, and the Houthis, and has been denied.MausebruTheYeeter (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the map needs to be updated to reflect the recent changes in control of certain territories in Syria by HTS. As of the 13/10/2022, they currently control the city of Afrin . Fnaf guy123 (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

They captured Afrin and the surrounding countryside, apparently also 26 other villages. Reports are also are saying that they are heading to Azaz. Gehirnstein (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Israel is confirmed to be involved and sources are these: some of these say non-military, while others confirm Israeli military involvement in Syria to support some 12 rebel groups. Israel should be added as a supporter of the rebels or a separate column.Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 18:29, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

And another one. Israel should be in the infobox ASAP. (Im not adding just not to anger everyone)Mausebru the Peruvian (talk, contibs) 20:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree. If Egypt is in there with little support given, so should Israel (which to my knowledge still has connections with Syrian insurgents in Daraa area). 2601:85:C101:C9D0:2C01:9B35:1C0F:1180 (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I support adding Israel to the infobox, although i dont know where it should be added, as the sources, at least on my view, dont say what rebel group they are supporting. SnoopyBird (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Many of those 'sources' are biased bloggers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:1A0:F4FD:A106:28BD:FD70:2995 (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Haaretz, Times of Israel and Reuters arent "biased bloggers".... SnoopyBird (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I have removed this group from main belligerents at the infobox, its inclusion doesn't appear to have been discussed and there are no sources reporting it as a main belligerent to the conflict alongside SAA, FSA, ISIS and SDF. Ecrusized (talk) 12:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello Ecrusized, I have modified the infobox with Al-Qaeda in Syria and its defunct branches. Although Hurras al-Din isnt powerful as its former iterations, it is appropriate to include it seperately under Al-Qaeda; which was a key actor in the conflict Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

@Shadowwarrior8: Your changes are inappropriate as they do not cite any sources. Al Qaeda central command was never involved in Syria, you have added Al Qaeda to the infobox without citation. Al Nusra front which is the Syrian branch of Al Qaeda changed its name Jabhat Fatah al-Sham in 2016, and then to Tahrir al Sham in 2017. This information is already included by notes at the bottom of the infobox. Hurras Ad Din is a minor organization and it is not the direct descendent of Al Nusra. Ecrusized (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ecrusized

I hope you actually dont believe what you are suggesting, but it is obvious that Al Qaeda central command is involved in Syria. Central command is one thing, organisation is another. Al-Qaeda's syrian branches are part of Al-Qaeda and what is your rationale for seperating it from "Al-Qaeda"?? Provide sources for your assertion. Furthermore, core leaders in the central command were active partcipants in Al Nusra. .

Also, Tahrir al Sham is not an affiliate of Al-Qaeda. It was formed as a merger between Jabhat Fath al Sham and 3 other Islamist militias in 2017. It bans Al-Qaeda activities in its area of control. 2 Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You are adding WP:SYNTH material. Al Qaeda leaders did not declare the towns in Syria they occupied to be under the flag of Al Qaeda central command, instead they declared Al Nusra. Even if you believe they did it doesn't matter as you cannot add your opinions to Wikipedia, you need to cite sources which explicitly state the argument. Ecrusized (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Ecrusized

Dont engage in strawman arguments (see WP:TPG), because I already provided the source for Al-Nusra being loyal to AQC. You are promoting Fringe Theories. Every regional branch of Al-Qaeda is Al-Qaeda and is described as such in any article. Be it Somali Civil War, Mali War, Yemeni civil war, etc.

Also you claimed Tahrir al-Sham is part of Al-Qaeda without sources; while I provided clear sources for them banning Al-Qaeda activities and arresting AQ leadership. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok well, I really don't care that much. You have been warned by half a dozen users about adding original research before and some other user will probably revert your changes. Ecrusized (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

For the most part I agree with @Ecrusized:. Currently the infobox is a misleading mess and the revision prior to the recent round of edit warring more accurately reflected the main belligerents of the war. The biggest issue is that Jabhat al-Nusra and Jabhat Fatah al-Sham are the previous names of the organization now known as Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham. This is even part of a note. Placing them and their commanders on separate columns is completely illogical.

While Hurras al-Din is notable enough to include, putting it in the same column as the Islamic State also doesn't make sense given that al-Qaeda continues to oppose IS. HaD has come into conflict with HTS several times, but the conflict isn't a major, continuous one; HaD and HTS are currently co-belligerents against the Syrian government. It would be more accurate to place them on the same column, but with a divider line between them to show that they're not necessarily allies, while still on the same broad side. Lightspecs (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Syrian Civil war starts March 15 2011 Jonathan555568 (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I think "Syrian civil war" should not be used as long as the war is ongoing and independent verifications are more or less impossible. Only historians can decide whether this truly is a civil war or rather a proxy war against Syria or something even wider. I don't necessarily want to suggest an alternative. This could be found in a discussion of the issue.

Using such names - other examples would be "terrorist attack" or "suicide" for respective events even before any meaningful and independent investigation - is significant because they shape the perception of things and events before the issue is really settled. It is like calling somebody a criminal before the conclusion of a trial. Mregelsberger (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

While you make good points, most civil wars, especially due to the political context of the last century, have seen substantial foreign support for belligerents. Probably, by my own count, most recent civil wars have been exploited as proxy wars by stronger powers in order to further their geopolitical aims. Thus, civil war is an apt descriptor for this conflict. 2601:85:C100:46C0:C51A:2566:AF10:9013 (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2011 Syrian Revolution which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:17, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Basically just title. I think it has escalated to a point where it might be needed. Brojiden69 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

What happened to the belligerents section??? Napalm Guy (talk) 10:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The infobox of this article is way too large compared to the prose. The new default skin Vector 2022 limits text width, which exacerbates the issue. My suggestion is to have it collapsible so that readers can stop looking at needle-like paragraphs. Carpimaps (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, and tagged. I have altered the formatting of the template to reduce the width a bit, but the main problem is that it has far too much information in it, contrary to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. (Hohum ^@) 20:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. One thing that would cut it down a ton would be to simplify the casualty and strength counts of every single involved party. We could summarize the Syrian govt/Russia/Iran/Hezbollah casualties in one line called "Government-aligned countries", for instance. HappyWith (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This infobox is not only way too big but way too busy and complex for it to provide the reader with an "understandable" at a glance summary and therefore fails WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. An infobox is unsuited to the degree of detail that this infobox is trying to capture - detail which is best suited to an explanation by way of prose. Accordingly, I have removed much of the information to the bare bones - key points that can be readily understood. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

XavierGreen, you have reinstated the infobox to a version prior to the edit I made whereby it was substantially trimmed with your edit summary: There was no consesnus to remove all the belligerents from the infobox. While there may not be a clear consensus for the edit I made, in the light of WP:P&G there is a clear consensus to reduce the size of the infobox. Simply reinstating the long version of the infobox goes against this consensus. As I indicated above, the nature of the belligerents involved (and associated information such as casualties) is complex, nuanced and way too detailed for an infobox to capture in a simple way that is readily understandable. An infobox is unsuited to capturing such detail, nuance and complexity. The size, complexity and detail of the long version of the infobox fails WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It is a matter best left to prose. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

there was utterly no consensus to remove all the belligerent parameters. There is no military conflict page with an infobox that does not list the belligerents. You are blatantly wrong.XavierGreen (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

If including all the belligerent makes the infobox bigger than the lead itself, I don't think it is helpful to add it. Ca ^{talk to me!} 15:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I would add, that if the contents of the infobox are essentially incomprehensible, there is definitely no reason to add it. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry if this was already mentioned in an older thread, I wasn't able to find one in the archives. Why does the "timeline" section on this article have no timeline, instead containing dozens upon dozens of links to pages that basically just give day-by-day updates? An ordinary reader, coming to this page and wanting to see what recent major developments are, wouldn't be able to find them without following a bunch of links outside. This also leads to the lead containing tons of info that isn't in the article body. I feel like there should at least be a summary of general events in the article body. HappyWith (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This article needs lots of improvement. I think we just need someone to be BOLD enough to take on the task. From my perspective, go ahead. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

You are 100% right. Splitting into a million sub sections with no information, only links, is pretty much pointless. I'm not gonna even try because this is nowhere in my wheelhouse. But surely somebody could at the very least summarize major events. There's always the "main article: timeline" link, and obviously no need for it to be reiterated a million times to links to different sections. Honestly this is an extremely hard article because the conflict is just so complicated. Even just 1-2 sentences per major event (initial revolution and rebellion, ISIS vs coalition, rojava vs turkey) would do for the timeline section. MarkiPoli (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

@MarkiPoli agree, this is difficult to read. 47.132.127.113 (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

There is an ongoing Request for Comments related to this article. If you wish to watch participate in the discussion, you can hear: Talk:List of wars involving the United States#Request for comment. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I accept that a conclusion was reached for a shorter and more concise infobox in the above RfC, but the version proposed by @Cinderella157 and eventually accepted leaves out which factions are involved in the fighting, crucial information a reader should be able to get from the infobox. I am partial to the edit made by @Ialwayscomeback2020, which could be further simplified by removing the year of involvement for various countries and organisations as well as modifying the Islamist column to just "Al-Qaeda and allies" and "Islamic State", in addition to using "AANES" or "Autonomous Administration" in lieu of Rojava. Sisuvia (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

@Shadowwarrior8 and Cinderella157: As the uninvolved editor who closed the previous RfC in favour of the shorter version, there is no consensus against adding further detail into the infobox, so long as it does not become as large as the version before the RfC. The proposal to add the belligerents would not be against consensus, and any editor can add such details. Any editor can also revert them, but such revert should be based on opposing the additions, and not to enforce consensus. I am impartial as to whether this should be included or not. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)