Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 55

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

The Syrian National Army and Free Army have both merged with the new government(even our sidebar mentions the former happened back in March, and the latter happened in June as seen here Syria builds a new military from several armed groups after Assad's fall | The Jerusalem Post).

The Turkish forces in Afrin have also allowed the new government in and are working with them, meaning no need to color it differently. https://hawarnews.com/en/clashes-in-occupied-afrin-result-in-injuries and seeing as the base's RCA/SFA guys joined the new government and Trump is normalizing relations the same effectively applies at Al-Tanf, no need to mark it specially for the same reason we don't mark bases in Germany.

So really aside from the insurgents, the only thing that should still be on the map are the New Government, the SDF. and MAYBE the Turkish occupation zone over in the middle of SDF territory as I can't find any sources that they handed that over and Turkish forces are still there. (Oh and I guess Golan though that's being worked on). We can also clean up all that grey zone in the desert that's only there do to Assad collapse, the government has it since the RCA/SFA joined up with them and the SDF withdrew behind the river there. I'm also pretty sure the Druze thing was one specific clique backed by Israel and not the whole of the province, and with their negociations that's largely not a thing right now, but you can hold off on that I guess. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:8DCA:8AAB:5AF2:A38D (talk) 21:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with most of this. There is no need for the huge grey areas they should really be shown as Syrian armed forces and the FSA doesn’t need to be shown seperately for the reasons you said. It should really only be the Israeli controlled areas SAF SDF Turkish occupation. Can I ask though why does that article show they let them in is that because that city is Turkish rebel controlled and the gov is operating there? GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

pinging @Ecrusized 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know about this. Turkey still holds significant forces in northern Syria that was under the control of SNA factions, and hasn't withdrawn any of its troops. Just because a dejure united army was announced doesn't mean that HTS and SNA are the same army now. Besides, ISW and other maps still show it separately, so any combined map would be original research.

Techinically even SDF agreed to be a part of the new Syrian government, but still functions as a de facto independent state. Ecrusized (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

What about all the grey parts on the map? Could they now be changed to Syrian Armed Forces? GothicGolem29 (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

This was discussed on the files talk page a few months ago, with an example map present, but it was opposed back then. c:File talk:Syrian Civil War map.svg#Should the "Lost Regime Territory" be shown as under HTS control? Ecrusized (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

thanks for the answer. At least two here including me support changing it to Syrian Army control might be worth another discussion. GothicGolem29 (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

SDF hasn't gone through with the merge yet while the other two did in March and June. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:DD48:AD3:2A32:3E69 (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Livemap basically is doing what I suggested except they haven't marked the insurgents 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:AC71:2B22:34D8:ECBB (talk) 21:48, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Aren’t there supposed to be some Turkish forces still there because of the Afrin Enclave? 2600:1700:1681:9AA0:25CF:A0AF:27DC:1750 (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, the map should be Green. Only Suwayda, SDF areas and that Turkish enclave between SDF areas should be a different colour. Jobfr (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Good thing we didn't declare it over yet, ugly fighting broke out. On the one hand, this confirms my question from last time on if the Druze issue was still active. It is. So that part of the map is fine.

On the other hand I think it really highlights how our color coordination doesn't separate groups that HAVE joined the new government and are effectively part of it (SNA and SFA/RCA, in March and June respectively) and the ones that haven't (The Druze and the SDF).

I personally like LiveMapSyria's approach(they mark the SNA and SFA as part of the government, as well as the Turkish forces in Afrin as they let the government in and cooperate with them. But they don't mark the Druze or SDF that haven't signed on and joined, nor do they mark the Olive Branch Turkish occupation as the government isn't there. I know that's a massive departure from what I was saying in December(where they sucked at keeping up as did everyone), but it's the most logical right now. And we used to use them as our source. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:AC71:2B22:34D8:ECBB (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Map suggestion based on what was discussed prior: https://imgur.com/a/x3LUyf8 here 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:58DF:9B8:3569:8705 (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I support this map based on the new situation with the Druze, the Turkish rebel groups joining the army per your previous source but Turkey still occupying some land and my previous comments on the grey parts being removed. GothicGolem29 (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

If you wanna keep the Turks in Afrin or even the Yanks in Al-Tanf that's fine, we can have that discussion another day, I just think we should get rid of the SNA and SFA on the map at this point because it's dishonest.

And that's coming from someone who fought to separate them in December/January. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:7D5C:8F7D:DF3A:6785 (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I was agreeing with you as iirc you left a buffer zone in part of the map showing the Turkish forces. I agree those groups should not be on the map. GothicGolem29 (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not completely in favor of the proposed map but, this map (after updating and making some changes, like joining Afrin SNA and the sole RCA^[a] into the Transitional government territory and keeping some gray areas like between suwayda and Al tanf and near SDF territory in the North and with Israel South of mount Hermon) could be far far better 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 07:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I don’t really support those grey areas they just don’t seem Necessary. And the Turkish rebel area you added to that map I’m not sure on given per the above source they seem to have merged into the Syrian army. GothicGolem29 (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of grey areas either but it's a necessity, we can't just label the desert as STG where the line is rather Unknown and unmarked, it doesn't make sense giving the desert in for example suwayda to STG, same with some areas in the North, what my proposal is, it's to remove as much as can be done without making the map absurd, the no man's land should be kept that way where the line is blurry 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 12:58, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Fine with the one in the north, in the south I think it's been established the river is the dividing line as SDF pulled back behind it?

And yeah merge the SNA and Afrin area along with the RCA, and change the remaining green to simply "Turkish Occupation" because that's the Operation Peace Spring area. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:951C:B3EC:35FC:868E (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

I would disagree that it’s a necessity. I could see that the grey areas in the northern part separating parts of the gov to the SDF could be needed but the large amount of grey areas in the southern parts I’ve not seen any evidence to suggest that is necessary and that no one controls that at all. GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

We already show the new government controlling their bank of the river in the south. Between that and the RCA joining them fully in June there's no need for grey zone in the south at all. Only grey should be in the north near Raqqa where the exact Government-SDF line is vague.

Can we just get SOMETHING this current map is horribly out of date 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:E995:B3E5:54CF:8A40 (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

The south also needs grey zones, like yesterday druze and beduins were clashing in western Rif Damashq governorate, also there's regular Israeli raids south of mount Hermon making the area a grey zone, the lines are blurry over there and that warrants grey zones

(Pinging @Ecrusized for comments) 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 07:43, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm updating the map in every ISW update, its currently citing this: https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/iran-update-july-17-2025

I wouldn't like to make any original research changes such as merging pro-Turkish factions and HTS under the same color or coloring the contested areas under HTS control. As far as I know, and as far as ISW shows, HTS entered the major cities in SNA zones, like Azaz, Afrin, Al-Bab and Manbij. But there has been no HTS entry into the "Operation Peace Spring" zone, which operates as an exclave, only bordered by Turkey and AANES. Ecrusized (talk) 07:54, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

How is merging HTS and pro Turkish factions into Syrian armed forces on the map original research when there’s a source above saying there was a merger into the armed forces? GothicGolem29 (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Would it be feasible - and readable - to make a collage of several successive maps, to show the territorial evolution of the war ? Psychloppos (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea I would support that. GothicGolem29 (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I mean that's what Livemap did and they basically got the result we did from combining sources.

The SNA and SFA areas are under the new government, almost all the grey zone is thus theres except a bit in the north near the Kurds(the southern section is split at the river), and the Operation Peace Spring zone is still run by the Turkish Army. So it should just be the SDF, the new government, the Druze/Tribal area, the Turkish Peace Spring zone, and any insurgents marked(whether Isis or Assadist) 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:BDA8:ECB8:D76A:A09C (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe the SIG (SNA civilian government) still has control over most of the rural territory, and the SNA hasn't completely integrated into the GSS. However I wanted to say whoever has been updating the map hasn't updated it in a while, according to ISW CTP Qara-Qozak bridge is disputed between the SNA and SDF again (map shows it even though there haven't been any reports about it in a while so I'm fine with that not being changed) and the GSS has taken control of more areas in the Suwayda region which also hasn't been shown. Along with the fact that Russians are still shown on the Qamishli helicopter base. I'd update it myself if I knew how to. Also Turkey does still seem to be deployed in northern Syria. Smol2204 (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Cant we just update this vastly outdated map? The new Syrian Governmemt controls most territory. The Kurd control is still an issue though. DitorWiki (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Can you mention the updated map? Koshuri ^(あ!) 13:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Mostly just by reading, the SNA joined in March and there's an article from June above describing the SFA/RCA joining. Neither of them should be on the map anymore, it's all the new government 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:BDA8:ECB8:D76A:A09C (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, just fricking update it 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:B9EA:217:F49D:B687 (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The detailed map has been updated already, according to ISW CTP which is the agreed upon source after a former argument. However no one has taken the liberty of updating the SVG that is displayed on the wikipedia page and I personally don't know how to. I already mentioned this on the other comment but it seems that the SIG (SNA civilian arm) has retained control over rural area's and there is no confirmation of anything being handed over other than what is already shown. Even then the SNA isn't exactly well integrated and has occasionally acted on it's own. The current changes to the detailed map show the areas that have been taken control of in Suwayda and as of now the Russian helicopter base. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map (can be seen here) https://www.understandingwar.org/ (ISW-CTP which is the current source for the map). Smol2204 (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ahmed al-Sharaa in June 2025 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Official portrait of Ahmed al-Sharaa (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi

This article should be rewrited. Panam2014 (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Why should it be rewritten? GothicGolem29 (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

@GothicGolem29: see Syrian insurgency (2024–present) Panam2014 (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

I read it I'm still not sure why you want it to be rewritten so can you please explain? GothicGolem29 (talk) 00:59, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

it is AI generated. JaxsonR (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok thanks. If it is then yeah I’d agree it needs to be rewritten. GothicGolem29 (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

Coming here to discuss with @AHI-3000 and any other interested editors because this has been going back and forth over the last few weeks. I have been removing the "part of" list from the top of the infobox. I don't think we need to list for readers (in one of the most prominent spots in the article) that this war was "part of the Qatar–Saudi conflict" or "part of the Russia-U.S. proxy war". It clutters up the infobox and is a distraction. There are 14 "part of" items listed! You can make a reasonable case for any one of them individually, but collectively they are not necessary. It's much simpler, and easier for the reader, to leave the top of the infobox alone and mention these related articles/conflicts when they come up naturally in the text. Several are already listed in the lead. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

"Part of" is useful for connecting a war to related conflicts and events. Let's be real, nobody who's just looking at the infobox is going to scroll through the entire article, especially as long as it is, to find similar information scattered around. That's what an infobox is for. I'm open to trimming down the "Part of" section a little bit to have less links in it, but not removing it entirely. AHI-3000 (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable path for compromise. What would you say to just retaining Syrian revolution and Arab Spring? Those are the most significant and clearly encompass the civil war. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Obviously those should be kept, though they weren't the only conflicts or events that the Syrian war was significantly tied with. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I have removed some links from the infobox, check out the page. Do you have any other suggestions about what should be kept or removed? AHI-3000 (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I think Arab-Israeli conflict, Iran-Israel proxy war, Iran-Saudi Arabia proxy war, and Second Cold War can also all be removed. My concern, however, is that in six months someone will come along and just add them all back in. As I said, a reasonable case could be made for any of them individually - it's collectively that they present a problem. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Though Turkey, Iran, Israel, Russia, and the USA all played important roles in the Syrian conflict, both directly with their own militaries and through their respective proxies. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed - hence my suggestion that the simplest thing is to just remove them all from the top of the infobox entirely, rather than picking and choosing. Perhaps there's a way to incorporate them all into the infobox in a different spot, lower down? That would address my concern. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what you're trying to suggest. Links to related conflicts belong in the "Part of" section in the infobox. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm saying perhaps we could move the entire 'Part of' section of the infobox to a different position within the box, lower down. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Leaving it as a footnote at the bottom of the box? I'm not sure how that would be more helpful or organized. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm... let's pause for now and see if others weigh in and help clarify consensus or make good suggestions. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

• Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is to summarise key facts from the article. If it isn't in the body of the article it doesn't belong in the infobox. It also tells us that less is better. A long list not supported by the body of the article is definitely out. More than one or perhaps two (supported by the article) is probably too much. Just because we have a parameter in the infobox doesn't mean we have to use it. I tend to agree with Ganesha811, Too many "part of" - simplest solution is to remove them all and let the text do the work, unless we can come back to one or two. The present version is way off the mark. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

  I don't think we need to have a long list, but I don't see the problem with having a few of them, this conflict is definitely part of the Arab Spring/Winter and multiple international proxy wars. AHI-3000 (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Capitalisation of war on terror in the infobox

AHI-3000, your most recent change of capitalisation to War on terror was with the edit summary Proper nouns referring to historical events or periods should be capitalized. As I have indicated before, the term war on terror is not capitalised in prose in the subject article. This is because it is not consistently capitalised in sources per MOS:CAPS and is therefore not considered a proper name. In headings etc, including the infobox, we use sentence case. As the term is being used part way through a sentence fragment in the infobox, it should not be capped. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Could be worth keeping an eye on. I think we mostly agreed a conflict between those two means the war is still on 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:8803:B5AD:49D7:D10A (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Syrian Government has announced a massive offensive in October if the SDF doesn't surrender and join the government

That might be worth factoring into the 'is it over' debate 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:3C30:4232:EC1E:D90A (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

I say we wait until october to see what happens next, it is always possible the SDF gives in and the offensive doesn't happen. 2600:8800:5000:22B:E80B:51A6:484:D9BA (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

1. [a]

   leaving the Al tang deconfliction zone as it is