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.
a new article needs to be formed to cover the airstrikes.Alhanuty (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan are also participating in the airstrikes [1]. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
[2014 military intervention against ISIS] covers it well. Legacypac (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I guess they belong in the same column as the Kurds here. FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
-The info box says that the US are only at war with ISIS, but they are also bombing al-Nusra terrorists. Should this be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.87.215.91 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, maybe use a wider term, maybe "al Qaeda linked Islamists". FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
But the Islamic State is not linked to al-Qaeda. DylanLacey (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Eh, yes it is. It was formerly called al Qaeda in Iraq. Only difference is that they do not listen to Zawahiri anymore. FunkMonk (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
No, it isn't. It used to be connected to al-Qaeda. All connections have been severed, and there has been considerable fighting between al-Nusra (part of al-Qaeda) and IS. It would be very misleading to say "al Qaeda linked Islamists". DylanLacey (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
No, they are still very much in contact. Nusra and IS even conducts joint operations in some areas. Notably in Lebanon, during the battle of Arsal. After US involvement, they are likely to stop infighting completely. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Obviously, if Wikipedia had a four-column conflict infobox template, that would be preferable. Heck, I'd even take a five-column one, since Jabhat al-Nusra has clashed with the FSA and other groups in the past. I mean, we could really go crazy without the constraints Wikipedia imposes, and maybe it's better this way. But we are left with the problem of how to arrange the combatants.
Obviously, the Syrian government and the "mainstream" armed opposition groups oppose one another. The Islamic State is currently fighting both the government (captured an airbase this weekend) and the opposition (battling for supremacy in Aleppo, among other places), as well as the Kurds in both Syria and Iraq, which has been a well-publicized part of the conflict lately. But the Islamic State could also be seen as a co-belligerent of the rest of the opposition against the government...except for the part where the government appears to have played them off one another to the point where the Islamic State has arguably spent more of its time, energy, blood, and ammo against anti-Assad fighters and civilians than it has fighting the Syrian Army.
The Kurds have cooperated with the government at times, but they also took up arms against the Syrian Army fairly early in the fighting and continue to stake out their own territory much more aggressively than they did before the conflict began. The Kurds have clashed with opposition fighters at times, but it seems to me they have largely acted as co-belligerents (if not allies) against both the government and the Islamic State.
So my preference would be to go back to presenting the government and Islamic State in their own columns and including the Kurds with a line separator in the opposition column, before FutureTrillionaire's edit. But I'm interested in hearing other editors' take on this. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
According to our map, the cities of Hasakah and Qamishli are under joint government-Kurdish control. This indicates a level of cooperation between the government and the Kurds. Those two parties rarely fought against each other, so it seems like the least unfavorable option is to put the Kurds in the same column as the government, but separated by a horizontal line.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Is there a way to do it similar to how the Bosnian War infobox presents the sides? The Kurdish militias and government hardly seemed to be on the same side in 2011, 2012, or most of 2013. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Issue has been discussed about a dozen times and the result was always - ISIS in the rebel column with a double separation line. Number 1 - it is not possible to make four columns. Number 2 - ISIS was in an alliance with the rest of the anti-Assad forces for a full year before they turned on each other. Number 3 - Most reliable sources consider ISIS still one of the anti-Assad forces and when talking about the ISIS vs FSA/IF/Nusra conflict they refer to it as inter-rebel factional fighting. Even SOHR counts ISIS fatalities in the overall toll as part of the opposition force's death toll. Number 4 - Kurds are playing their own game separate from everyone else and that's why they have a column of their own. They are at the moment in an alliance with the Syrian government in Hasakah vs ISIS and in an alliance with the FSA vs ISIS in Aleppo. Although they don't like Assad they are not part of the anti-Assad forces because they don't care if he falls or remains, just as long as nobody buts into their bussiness and leaves them alone to run their own country. And in the future, please discuss the issue more broadly with other editors before making rather unilateral edits. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I appreciate your thoughts. Please review WP:BRD before telling me how to edit Wikipedia. Thank you! -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I am aware of WP:BRD but this is a rather controversial issue and besides BRD also states Care and diplomacy should be exercised.EkoGraf (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about ISIS & Assad always having been enemies, though certainly are now. See:
Divide and conquer, the oldest trick in the book. ISIS and the other insurgents were allied for a long time (still are, conducted joint operation in Lebanon a few weeks ago), and yes, the regime fought them from the beginning. But why should they intervene when ISIS began slaughtering other terrorists? Assad did the only sane thing. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Given that the Kurds & ISIS seem to be out for themselves, maybe ISIS & the Kurds should be together w/a double line between them. Something similar to the Bosnian War infobox might also work. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
That makes no sense, they are fighting each other. If anything, grouping the Kurds with the regime would make more sense than that, since they don't fight. But yet again, what we have is the most accurate, as ISIL is simply assimilating the rest of the Islamist groups. FunkMonk (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
But the FSA isn't "Islamist", and they've asked for U.S. help in fighting ISIS: [2][3] Just because some FSA units have defected to ISIS doesn't make them bedfellows, at all. ISIS has probably been responsible for more FSA casualties than it has Syrian Army casualties. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The "Free Syrian Army"? What is that but merely a name? They're militarily about as significant in Syria as Fatah is in Gaza. FunkMonk (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
<Reduce indent> What about the idea of arranging the infobox like the Bosnian War infobox? Is it even possible or are the various factions of the civil war too complex in their shifting alliances for such an idea? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It is of course a lot easier to make such an arrangement with hindsight. This war is ongoing, so there is no such clear overview yet. Trying to neaten things up would be way too premature. FunkMonk (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
So should it be done whenever the war ends? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Only if it turns out such a scheme makes sense. Again, the point is that it's too early to know. Many of these "groups" (or rather just names of various constellations) have little significance and will largely be forgotten anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree with EkoGraf. Especially since the other "rebel" group are slowly but surely being absorbed by ISIL. FunkMonk (talk) 05:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
There's that too. At this rate, soon more than half of ISIS will be former FSA/IF units. EkoGraf (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
A number of FSA brigades and the YPG have formed an alliance to combat the Islamic State [4], assuming the alliance holds, columns might need rearranging? Gazkthul (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Alliances change so fast that we would need different infoboxes for every few months. We need to focus on what is stable and long lasting. This hardly seems to be. Just the remnants of the FSA grasping for relevance. Notice they can't even coordinate their chants in the ending. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm finding it increasingly hard to AGF with you, FunkMonk. It seems like you have had a very, very strong interest from the very start of this uprising in Wikipedia portraying the Syrian opposition as Islamist in nature or otherwise beholden to Islamists, downplaying and ridiculing moderate elements, regardless of the context of the discussion. There is a very serious question here: is it still accurate to have ISIS and the other opposition factions placed in the same column, considering that by virtually all accounts, this conflict has become a three-sided war between the government, the opposition, and the Islamic State? There are good arguments for and against. But by snarking about how the FSA is "grasping for relevance" as evidenced by some sloppy chanting, or dismissing opposition groups by saying they "will largely be forgotten anyway", you come off as unconstructive and your comments really smack of tendentious editing to me. Just my two cents. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Have I ever hidden my disdain for the "opposition"? Hardly a revelation. But notice that I have never cared enough to engage in edit war on this subject, I'm not a zealot, like Sayersll and Sopher, even though I have actual connections to the conflict, unlike them. Look, there is no way we can have more than three columns, it is technically impossible. That's what we have to work with. Our motivations are irrelevant, as long as the outcome most accurately reflects the situation on the ground. As is, it cannot be more accurate than this. FunkMonk (talk) 00:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
No, you haven't, and I would hardly compare you to the likes of Sopher99. I do think it would be considerably more accurate to list the Kurds in either the government column or the opposition column, while placing the Islamic State -- which is in a state of open war with Damascus and both mainstream and Islamist opposition groups alike, something that cannot be said for the Kurds -- in a third column by its lonesome. If you have cogent arguments as to why the third column should be used for a relatively minor player in the conflict, which has not engaged in the kind of full-scale, multiple-fronts fighting that the other factions have, I would like to hear them. But I don't consider sardonic one-liners about how pathetic the Free Syrian Army is to really be arguments at all, as much as evidence of a very problematic bias on your part. -Kudzu1 (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Fighting between IS and the other Islamist groups has largely died down, and they were allies until recently. IS is also swallowing up many rebel groups these days. Nusra and IS conducted joint operations in Lebanon just last month. As I mentioned above, with the limited capabilities of the infobox, it should reflect the overall history of the conflict, not specific, temporary phases. We need to focus on what is stable and long lasting. FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
ISIS has been fighting against the opposition literally all year: Inter-rebel conflict during the Syrian Civil War. Seems stable and long-lasting to me. I just don't think it does any sort of service to Wikipedia's readers to have a column layout that makes it look like the FSA and Islamic State are allies against the government on one hand and the Kurds on the other. It is not accurate in any sense. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
As I said, the fighting has died down considerably, Nusra, IS and other opposition groups have been working together in several areas the last weeks. Infighting is normal in civil wars. FunkMonk (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Lebanon is a different theatre entirely, and notable commentators -- including the U.S. president -- have drawn a meaningful distinction between what is sometimes called the "moderate Syrian opposition" (which is, of course, code for Western-educated and relatively secular) and the Islamic State. As Gazkthul noted (albeit with a non-RS), the FSA and other groups are actively fighting the Islamic State not just as a matter of "infighting", but as a concerted campaign: [5] This conflict has all the characteristics of a three-way war for territory between Syria, the Islamic State, and the disparate anti-Damascus and -Raqqa opposition groups. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The FSA is doing little to nothing on the ground these days, I'm not ridiculing them, it is simply a fact. Nusra has been the main adversary to IS, but now they seem to be making up. I guess IS just had to show who's the boss, and now the rest has fallen in line. "Moderate rebels" is merely a buzzword, I'm not sure who believes in it anymore. The Americans are getting so desperate that some commentators are arguing for arming Nusra, as they are apparently "less extreme". An FSA commander who whined to the BBC about IS being created by the regime just joined IS a few days ago. FunkMonk (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Once again, I don't think your personal perception of the FSA is germane. And if there are actual notable figures saying in earnest that the United States should arm an affiliate of al Qaeda, I haven't seen it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, what has the FSA actually done the last few months, other than just being namedropped? FunkMonk (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
They still hold most of Aleppo, the largest city in Syria, and they are active in southern Syria, working with Nusra to seize a border crossing earlier this month: [6] Yeah, they've been getting their butts kicked, generally speaking, and it wouldn't shock me to see them totally defeated sometime in the next year (although that is WP:CRYSTALBALL territory), but even still, they were the first organized fighting force to emerge among the Syrian opposition, and they continue to hold significant territory. To turn the question around, what have the Kurds actually done the last few months, other than just being namedropped? Why should the precious third column of the infobox be given over to them? -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
When the future is unclear, we have to look at precedents. The Kurds will continue fighting the opposition. The regime will continue fighting the opposition. The opposition will continue fighting with both of the aforementioned. These are the constants that will hardly change. That makes three columns, and everything beyond this is anyone's guess, and not up to us to decide now. We don't know if the opposition will continue fighting internally. FunkMonk (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
You neglected to answer my question, and you neglected to mention that the Kurds will continue fighting the government and vice versa, and I think that's telling -- both of the POV you bring to the discussion and the role of the Kurds. I supportFutureTrillionaire's proposal to move the Kurds to the government column with a solid line separating them from the Assad government. There is no way to justify the Kurds occupying a column of their own when the conflict is a three-way war in which they are both a minor player and generally nonbelligerent vis a vis Damascus. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
It is completely irrelevant that I have a specific POV. We all do, even you. That is not a problem for Wikipedia, as long as it is kept on the talk pages. That is what I'm doing, I'm not enforcing my view by edit warring or POV pushing in the articles, I'm discussing here, unlike many others. So please, let's discuss the issues, not each other. Here is the problem: The Kurds have never once been on the government side. But all the Sunni Arab rebel groups have been on the same side more than once, and for very long periods, and most continue to cooperate in some capacity or other. This is a fact, and that's what the infobox should reflect. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
One way or another, something that would help would be if we put dates for the belligerents divided among three columns, i,e: like the Lebanese Civil War. We can say that IS fought on the side of the mainstream+islamist opposition up until January 2nd 2014 (or a different time if you prefer), and has been on its own side thereafter. This could also be useful, if at some time in the future Jahbat Al-Nusrah starts open war against the opposition. Additionally, I think that Rojava/ Syrian Kurdistan acted as its own group up until this date, when it started cooperating more openly with the opposition and Assad against ISIS (though this is also arguable). This means that the best of many evils for the infobox would show two columns for the Governmetn and the Opposition, with the latter containing ISIS with a "up until January second 2014 modifier", and a third column of "not the government or the opposition", which would be the Syrian Kurds up until January second and ISIS thereafter. , Ernestofinjay (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
See the last comments at the bottom of this page. FunkMonk (talk) 06:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
It does seem that this has been dealt with, at least for now (and the discussion has moved to the bottom of the page regardless). I'm closing the discussion, unless someone objects? -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is 'civil war' appropriate? (Retitling the article)
I would imagine all IS citizens and FSA citizens have renounced their Syria Arab Republic citizenships, so they are not be considered citizens of Syria. If they fight the Syria government, then it is Syria at war with foreign entities, even if most of the citizens of these foreign entities have been born in Syria and were at one time citizens of the Syria Arab Republic. I would advice changing the name of the article from Syrian Civil War to Syrian War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Article names are based on WP:COMMONNAME, as the majority of reliable sources refer to it as a Syrian civil war, that's what the article is called. Gazkthul (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any recent articles still referring to the conflict in Syria as a civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.117.10 (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
There haven't been many recent articles that have been referring to the current multinational conflict as anything really. Leave it as it is for the moment.Ericl (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Only IS are likely to have renounced their citizenships, as the Caliphate now has its own passports. The rest still consider themselves as Syrians, except for the foreign fighters, obviously. "Syria" is a much more ancient concept than the current state. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
It's just a matter of time when we merge our content into this article. For now leave as it is. --Emesik (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
As I’ve said and argued before (here,9June2014): the beginning of the lead section talks rubbish, almost constantly. Wikipedia has never orderly decided when ‘Syrian uprising’ turned into ‘Syrian civil war’. Replacing that wrong lead nonsense with reasonable and correct statements doesn’t work out well, because Ljhenshall, here on 10July2014 and other colleagues like FutureTrillionaire (15June2014) and Emesik (30June2014) keep wanting to return to the nonsensical fables and fictions they have grown used to, without ever really motivating or sourcing their fantasy-leadsections. What we do know, by sources, is that ‘uprising’ started March2011, and ‘civil war’ started somewhere before July2012. I know of not one source putting an exact date on the start of civil war, therefore it is wrong if Wiki pins it down on a date, as it does now. Now, of course, anonymus 199etc. is right, that since 2012 the war has expanded into events that strictly are not ‘civil war’—but he gives the wrong reasons: it is because real foreigners (British, Belgians, Dutch, Saudis, etc.) are fighting there in Syria, that it is no longer a pure ‘civil war’. Strictly speaking, we can rename the article into: ‘2011–2014 war in Syria’. Actually, I can’t think of a good reason for NOT changing the name of the article into: ‘2011–2014 war in Syria’. (And, there again, our friend Emesik,26Sept20:50, trying to disturb and frustrate this serious discussion with his World War III nonsense. Strictly speaking, we are entitled to remove such nonsense from a discussion section.) --Corriebertus (talk) 16:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
There have been foreign fighters and meddling in every civil war in history, it is no different here. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
I can’t see what FunkMonk’s latest remark has to do with the subject here discussed. The question here is not whether some civil war from the past may no longer ne titled ‘civil war’ after we find out one foreigner has been participating: that is to be discussed at the appropriate pages of those civil wars, and foremostly for historians to decide on. The question here is, whether the content of this article, now called ‘SCW’, is (still) correctly indicated as ‘civil war’. Halfway 2012 that may have been rather an appropriate name, anyway it was then customary to entitle the current affairs in Syria as ‘civil war’, by UN and Red Cross and all around. I don’t pretend to be a very expert on this war (I’m not), but half way 2012, militias with many foreigners started to enter Syria and became rather effective in conquering terrain—so says Guardian 12July2013—and I’m more or less under the impression that that tendency grew stronger ever since. Consider for example ISIS (ISIL): they seem to be of momentous importance in this war but also seem predominantly or largely non-Syrian. Both discussants Ericl and anon198etc. observe that of lately the name ‘civil war’ is no longer commonly used for the actual situation in Syria. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
And—oops, how could I forget—some tiny, non-Syrian, foreign state power called United States of America (with others) has on 22 September 2014 begun bombarding in Syria, which events are fully covered in this article (‘Syrian Civil War’) (bombarding presumably commonly being considered an ‘act of war’); ehm—does FunkMonk know of civil wars in which foreign powers bombarded? If we want such acts to be presented in this article, which I think is logical and right, it seems to me also right and logical to change the no-longer-appropriate and therefore needlessly misleading title 'civil war' into 'war' (as I suggested here yesterday). --Corriebertus (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Ehm, have you heard of, just from the top of my head, the Spanish civil war and the Lebanese civil war, the former in which Germany bombed Spanish targets, and in the latter where the US bombed Lebanese targets, on behalf of belligerents in the civil war? FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Too bad, that FunkMonk doesn’t prove those bombings in Spain and Lebanon, nor the titling (by whom?) of those wars as ‘civil war’. It’s therefore impossible, and anyway no use, discussing here why some historians perhaps decided to call those wars ‘civil wars’, and whether they did rightly so. We see now in Syria a war with great, possibly dominating, foreign opposition against the Syrian Assad government—FunkMonk doesn’t refute that—and with foreign powers like the US fighting against one of those foreign enemies (ISIS)(and therefore logically fighting pro-Assad?). It simply doesn’t look much like civil war, anymore. I wonder what FunkMonk would accept as proof for the fact that this war is no longer solely a civil war. Does FM acknowledge the theoretical possibility of a civil war developing into a wider war? --Corriebertus (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? Those bombings are well known. It is not my job to teach you history. But because I'm such a nice guy, here are some hints. Spanish civil war.[7]Lebanese civil war.[8] The German bombing of Guernica is such a famous historical event that I'm simply baffled that you can even attempt to patronise me with these silly remarks. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see the logic used by Corriebertus that US bombing ISIS = pro-Assad. The Syria Civil War is not a binary conflict, it is a 4 or 5 sided conflict. This is not (2 player) chess but more like multiplayer Risk where alliances shift but the goal is to control the whole board. Legacypac (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
@FunkMonk&Legacypac: this discussion is about how to properly title an article about a war that, to my opinion and the opinion of several other discussants, comprises by now more than what an average citizen would understand as ‘civil war’. It’s irrelevant for that question whether U.S. is fighting pro-Assad (that was just a remark in parentheses, ending in a question mark!), the point is that U.S. is a non-Syrian belligerent (= warring party) in Syria, and ISIS probably for a large or predominant part also. Is it possible that a war that started as ‘civil war’ turns into a ‘war’ in wider sense? I think it is possible, and I think that it seems to have happened in Syria, as I amply argued. Appartently, the Spanish Civil War kept being called ‘civil war’ even though our German befriended Reichskanzler Adolph Hitler meddled in it with bombing Guernica. So what? Does that prove that a civil war can’t evolve into more general ‘war’? --Corriebertus (talk) 07:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
the original post contains easily refuted speculation and no proposed solution to what seems like a non-problem. Sure the war has evolved beyond a pure civil war so we already have an article about the 2014 military intervention in Syria. That does not negate the fact there has been and still is a very active civil war underway in Syria. Legacypac (talk) 08:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Legacypac and I agree that the war in Syria (begun somewhere 2011–2012), which Wikipedia in 2012 called ‘civil war’ (probably simply because it looked like a ‘civil war’ to us and to authoritative observers) has by now evolved beyond a pure civil war. Does he then also agree that titling it as ‘war’ would be more appropriate than ‘civil war’?
It is not certain whether we reach that shared conclusion by the same argument(s), because Legacypac does as yet not reveal his arguments to us; but perhaps the arguments for reaching that shared conclusion are less important.
The beginner of this discussion, mr. 199etc., reaches also the conclusion that the war covered here is no (longer a pure) civil war, but his arguments are not yet shared by anyone. Nevertheless: the three of us agree that the war depicted here is no (longer a) (pure) civil war.
Mr 199 and I consider the present Wiki-situation (title doesn’t fit the article) a ‘problem’: we therefore started this discussion, and prefer and propose a title like “war (in Syria…)” because we consider that more fitting and right than “civil war”. Does Legacypac agree to such better-fitting title?
Legacypac however is vague: the not optimally fitting title of the article “seems like a non-problem”, he says. Sorry: something is by definition a ‘problem’ as soon as anyone poses it as a ‘problem’ on these pages. You may react on the ‘problem’, the opinions, proposals, etc., but you can’t turn the stated problem into non-existence. If you don’t react to the issue raised in a section, then your posted contribution in the section is off-topic. I assume that his vagueness means—he may correct me if I interpret his vagueness wrongly: ‘I [= Legacypac] agree that ‘war’ is a better fitting and more appropriate title to this article than ‘civil war’; I however oppose the idea of re-titling it into something more fitting and appropriate like ‘war (in Syria)’.’ This would seem to me like deliberately wanting Wikipedia to be less correct and clear than it can be: deliberately harming Wikipedia. Opinions proposing to deliberately harm Wikipedia we are entitled to ignore here, I suppose.
I can perhaps ease Legacypac’s mind by saying that retitling the article does not at all mean that we from then on deny that also a civil war is still taking place in Syria (as part of that wider ‘war’, depicted in that retitled article). --Corriebertus (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
The conflict in Syria is a Civil War - as it fits the definition and all reliable sources term it as such. It is also a Proxy_war while remaining a civil war. Now we have some outside parties intervening against specific parties to the Civil War, but that does not make it a regular war between countries. Which country is fighting which country in this conflict? The US and allies are not trying to seize territory or occupy Syria, only trying to destroy ISIL, which is not a country. Legacypac (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus (anonym.199etc., Corriebertus, Legacypac) that the Syrian ‘civil war’ has evolved in a ‘war’ that exceeds ‘civil war’, because non-Syrian parties (ISIL, Bahrain, U.S., etc.) are now participating in this war which obviously no longer fits within the definition of ‘civil war’. Everyone will easily see and understand and accept that, also after looking up ‘civil war’ in dictionary or even in Wikipedia. (‘Proxy war’: nobody knows really what that is—is it a category of war? Or an adjective, like ‘long war’, ‘great war’, ‘Asian war’, ‘cruel war’? Wiki has a (fantasy-)article on ‘proxy war’ that cites no sources and can’t be taken serious.) In that case, a more correct title would be: “Syrian (Civil) War”. This is an amendment of my former contributions in this discussion, and it seems likely that it is in the spirit also of mr. 199etc. Mr. Legacypac is, I’m sorry to say this, starting to talk what looks to me as nonsense, today: he knows very well, and has said so earlier, that this war no longer fits ‘civil war’. Probably because he feels uncomfortable with the logical consequence (renaming the article into ‘war’, or ‘(civil) war’), he probably now starts denying his own words, without any convincing argument. (Which is again also very understandable, see Matthew 26 verse 70.) Legacypac is probably terribly unhappy someone brought this issue up, therefore on 29 Sept already suggested that the problem doesn’t exist—which by the way is an insult to the colleagues who brought this issue (= ‘problem’) up. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Legacypac is in favour of the current title. Again, external meddling is common in all civil wars, so is not an argument. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Let me be very clear. Corriebertus characterisation of my position is utter nonsense. There is no valid reason to change the title of this article away from Syrian Civil War since there has been and is a Syrian Civil War. We have other articles for related conflicts that fall outside the Syrian Civil War, including but not limited to interventions against ISIL, border clashes/spillovers, Iraqi insurgency etc. Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, if something is wrong with the proxy war article, go fix it. One editor's ignorance of the dictionary term proxy war does not equal "nobody knows really what that is" Legacypac (talk) 16:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with both Legacypac and FunkMonk. EkoGraf (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I also agree with Legacypac on the title remaining Syrian Civil War Gazkthul (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I fully agree that the tile should remain the same - Syrian Civil War. As has been discussed, many civil wars throughout history have involved outside forces. Foreign involvement is usually in support of one side or the other, and not to "invade" the country and take over in their own right. A civil war by definition is two (or more) factions fighting for control of the central government and territory. Just because another nation wants to help a particular faction win doesn't make it any less a civil war. The Syrian Civil War, ISIS, Arab Spring, revolutions in Egypt and Libya etc. could all be said to be interconnected in a way, but they are still separate events with their own indigenous roots, specific causes, and players that may or may not have any direct connection to any others. Point being, it's still a civil war. Coinmanj (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Russian Support
Russian special forces are operating inside Syria and there have been multiple sources about that with the latest one about a Russian ELNIT(electronic warfare) unit operating in Syria.In the Info box it should state that The Syrian government is supported by Russia not only armed.
Blogs are not reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Adding Israel as belligerent on Syrian Civil War maps
June 2013 consensus version for for Syrian maps - Israeli Golan is striped (Syria location map3.svg)
I would like to transfer here the discussion on Syrian Civil War maps legend - which has been low-level ongoing at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan, dealing with how to color Israeli Golan Heights and whether Israel should be added as a belligerent on the Syrian war maps.
I would like to point out that on June 2013, a consensus was reached to color Israeli-controlled Western Golan as striped (territory claimed by Syria, but de-facto controlled by Israel since 1967), in order to differentiate Western Golan from the rest of Syria since Syrian War battles are ongoing on Eastern Golan (Quneitra Governorate).
May 2014 version of Syrian War maps - only Government, Opposition, ISIS and Syrian Kurdistan as belligerents (Western Golan is either external to war theather, or is slightly striped) It is also evident that the community has established that Israel is not a participant of the Syrian Civil War (so far), which is evident from discussions, archived at Talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel and from WP:SCWGS-related motion (amendment of WP:ARBPIA on June 2013), which is specifically drawing the borderline between generally unrelated preceding Arab-Israeli conflict and the current Syrian Civil War; quote "The Arbitration Committee concludes that the topic of the Syrian Civil War does not fit within the category of Arab-Israeli disputes, although certain specific issues relating to that war would fall within that topic."
On April-May 2014 several users began a new discussion at talk:Syrian Kurdistan, with some proposing to color Israeli Golan Heights as white or blue and adding Israel into belligerents' legend. Apparently most of them are not aware of community decisions prior to April 2014. The attempt to add Israeli forces on Golan Heights as part of Syrian belligerents was however shortly reverted [12].May 2014 proposal - Israeli Golan added to war map in blue (Syrian civil war 2.png)
On August 23-25 user:Supreme Deliciousness again attempted to change Syrian Civil War-related maps to reflect the opinion that Israeli forces on Western Golan should be presented as part of the Syrian Civil War.
I'm herewith asking for opinions whether a long-standing consensus should be changed and Syrian Civil War maps, which currently present 4 belligerents - Syrian Government / Syrian Opposition / ISIS / Syrian Kurdistan, should also be added with 5th belligerent Israel (add /do not add). Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 07:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
First of all, consensus can change, just like the facts on the ground can. Secondly, Sopher99, who featured aggressively in many discussions, has been indef banned, including his several sockpuppets, which "contributed" all over the place in relation to Syria, so who knows what the "community" would agree on today. Thirdly, Israel does not need to be in the infobox just because it features on a war map, and could qualify as "certain specific issues relating to that war would fall within that topic." FunkMonk (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Consensus can change, but there should be a new consensus to change a previous consensus. Some people obviously challenge the previous consensus (4 belligerents on war maps), thus i open this thread.GreyShark (dibra) 08:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree with considering Israel a belligerent, if that's the proposal on the table. But I think it's appropriate to shade the map to indicate that Israel controls a part of what is de jure Syria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
For that purpose we can stripe the Western Golan (as decided on June 2013) - which has already been implemented on Syrian Civil War map in the past [13] (January 2014 version); However, adding Israeli forces to map certainly implies it is a belligerent.GreyShark (dibra) 08:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Whether we consider it a belligerent or not is irrelevant to the fact that Israel does physically interact with the undisputed belligerents in various ways. This is a fact, and if we keep Israel out of such a map, it will just be a ridiculous elephant in the room. And again, this has no bearing on whether Israel should be in the infobox as a belligerent or not, it is a separate issue. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
No one wants to put Israel in a map about Syria. The map shows the "current military situation in Syria", and we should point out that Israel is occupying part of Syria. We are not adding Israel as a belligerent. Greyshark has not presented this correctly. Please look at the map I added where the part of Syria that Israel is occupying is in white.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thats not the proposal on the table, Greyshark is not presenting this issue in an accurate way. No one is adding Israel as a belligerent. The map shows the "current military situation in Syria" and it should be pointed out that Israel is occupying part of Syria, not that Israel is a belligerent. Please take a look at the map I added here where the Golan heights is in white and the text under it with the dotted line separating that part of Syria that Israel is occupying from the civil war. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
IMO, the Golan Heights should be stripped, not colored. However, ultimately, it really doesn't make much of a difference.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Greyshark is not presenting this correctly: Greyshark talks about an "Israeli Golan Heights", no such thing exists. We are talking about an area that is in Syria. In this discussion: talk:Location map/data/Syria|thumbnail we talked about a location map of Syria and it was closed by a non-admin. The consensus there was that both a striped or non striped map could be used based on a case by case situation. Israel is not occupying stripes in Golan, so that kind of map shouldn't be used here. ·In this case the map shows the "Military situation in Syria", so not only active participants in the Syrian civil war. Look at the map to the right of this text. At Syrian Kurdistan talkpage we talked about this issue and it was consensus to have the Israeli-occupied Golan as white and it separated with a dotted line "(under Israeli occupation)": Talk:Syrian_Kurdistan#Military_map_issues --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
This is the 4th time in the past year that you are trying to push 5th belligerent into the main Syrian Civil War map.GreyShark (dibra) 15:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
INAPPROPRIATE CANVASSING: Greyshark has also went all over the place posting this: [14] which is clearly inappropriate canvassing. The discussion is NOT to ad Israel as 5th belligerent to Syrian Civil War maps, but to show that in a map showing the "Current military situation in Syria" Israel is occupying the Golan heights. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The image used throughout Syrian civil war articles is named "Syrian Civil War", not "current military situation in Syria".GreyShark (dibra) 15:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't matter. The image is presented in articles as "Current military situation in Syria" Israel is occupying part of Syria - before and during the Syrian civil war. It may not be a belligerent, but it is not presented as such in the map, only that it is occupying part of Syria. The Israeli-occupied part of Syria is specifically separated from the factions fighting each other. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
You are warned that throwing allegations on others with no basis is violating Wikipedia guidelines.GreyShark (dibra) 15:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
You have indeed acted inappropriately as you have opened this discussion and posted comments on people talkpages misrepresenting the map I added.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Unbased accusations against other users in Wikipedia is punishable. This is the last time i advice you to remove this allegation on canvassing before i issue a complaint.GreyShark (dibra) 17:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Israel is not involved in the civil war, therefore should not be shown. If any side where to invade Israeli occupied Golan Heights, only than should it be included, but at the current state, do not add Israel.—SPESH531Other 02:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Israel has bombed Syrian targets inside Syria plenty of times the last three years, and treated anti-Assad fighters in the Golan. So yes, Israel is involved, but not as a very active belligerent. And yet again, that is irrelevant to this map. FunkMonk (talk) 10:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Syria bombed Lebanon multiple times (targets of insurgents), Hezbollah of Lebanon (part of Lebanese government) occupies significant parts of Qalamun mountains on the Syrian side, Syria occupies several sectors on the Lebanese border since 1976. This is a mess, but Lebanon is still not on the map, neither is Hezbollah and neither should be Israel, which is so far the least involved.GreyShark (dibra) 17:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Lebanon has not attacked inside Syrian territory, Israel has. That is a pretty significant difference. FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Syrian Republic attacked inside Lebanon, Iraq and allegedly Turkey; Turkey and Jordan attacked inside what used to be Syria and Israel never admitted attacking inside Syria except some border incidents. There is a clear mis-proportion in trying to put Israel on belligerents' list or map.GreyShark (dibra) 07:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I think Israel's role is hard to depict correctly here. They should not be considered a regular belligerent, as their military activity is extremely low comparing to other parties. They are also playing their own game, just using opportunities created by Syria's internal conflict. However, their support for rebels has been confirmed and I think they should be listed in the infobox as follows:
1. as supporters of the non-ISIS opposition,
2. with annotation of armed involvement, linking to a section explaining it further, which needs to be created
I agree with users Supreme Deliciousness, FunkMonk and Emesik that Israel is involved in the war, though at a lower level than the main players. It is to an extent using the situation to its own interest, pretty much like the Kurds, and intervening at least with strikes. For the map, I think it is fair to keep Israeli-occupied Golan as white and in the legend have it separated with a dotted line "(under Israeli occupation)", as Supreme Deliciousness suggested. Hezbollah is already mentioned under the belligerents, and is allied to government forces, so it does not need its own color. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Colleagues, please don't title a discussion as "Discussion", that doesn't say anything, it's equivalent to not titling it at all. I can't react on a discussion without title. If this is still about '...Adding Israel...', then just remove the extra subsection-title 'Discussion'; if it's about something else then give it a real title (not as sub-section but as real section). --Corriebertus (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
30/10/2013 military situation in the Syrian Civil War.
The map is supposed to accurately represent the military situation in Syria; ergo, any map which did not delineate Israeli held territory would be indulging in a factual inaccuracy. How the occupation is shown, I am not particular about; stripes, shades, stars, polka dots, not bothered. But presenting Israeli controlled territory as Syrian government controlled seems out of the question to me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
What was done in the past was make Golan Heights gray, being the same gray as Turkey, Israel, Iraq, etc. Then their was a second version of the map where Golan Heights was blue, and a third barely used version where it was white. It has never been green or red.—SPESH531Other 04:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Not situation in Syria, but in the Syrian Civil War (not that there is any difference now, when Syria doesn't exist as a whole de-facto country any more). Notice that the title of the file is "Syrian Civil War".GreyShark (dibra) 07:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
I sure would like to add some intelligent (?!??) remark of mine to this discussion. However, the subject of discussion is unclear (in other words: non-existent). The first editor on a discussion section should state clearly the dilemma he wants us to deliberate on. Unfortunately, our right honorable friend GreyShark neglected to do so. No wonder then that the discussion bleeds dead, because everyone chooses the 'subject of discussion' to be a different one. So, please, if any of you still wants us to discuss something focusedly and effectively, simply start a new section with a really clear discussion issue. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
If this is to be a vote thing, where we decide on whether or not to add Israel, the vote (in my opinion) should be like that of the 2012 Puerto Rico referendum (odd example, for Syria, but I digress). Two questions, the first would be along the lines of, "Should Israeli control of the Golan Heights be colored, similar to the regime or IS?" and a second question, "If no, should the Golan Heights be represented as striped, solid gray (similar to that of other sovereign states), or a lighter gray?" I believe this would be a good idea to decide on what to do with Golan Heights.—SPESH531Other 20:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Leave Israeli controlled areas the same gray as all surrounding states. If, and only if, a Syrian Civil War participant overruns the area should the area be colored as held by a Syrian Civil War participant. Coloring the area white, green, purple or anything else turns Israel into a Belligerent, which it is not. Israel has restricted it actions to border protection. Legacypac (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I am going to make it the original status quo, (gray), until this is decided.—SPESH531Other 20:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Take a note that someone branded the map boxes as "current military situation in Syria", whereas it actually refers to "military situation in the Syrian Civil War" (map is titled "Syrian Civil War"). The "Syria" thing on some boxes led some editors to argue to add Israel to the map, because "it occupies former parts of Syria", but by saying "current military situation in the Syrian Civil War", addition of Israel to map legend is completely unjustified. The only thing is perhaps to use the striped Golan version of the map, to show that the area is disputed between Israel and the Ba'athist Syrian Republic.GreyShark (dibra) 12:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that you remove that it's under occupation and keep it as "Israeli Golan Heights", or "annexed" which you have done many times in different places. There is no such thing as it's recognized as Syrian territory occupied by Israel. That there is a civil war does not change that and it should be reflected. Maybe we could add that it's since 1967 to clarify that Israel isn't a party to the civil war but trying to not only remove the fact that it's occupied but also saying it's "Israeli" is unacceptable. --IRISZOOM (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Iris, let's be clear: A. The status of the Golan is not the issue here (how it is marked is another issue, though the community consensus says striped); the question is whether Israel needs to be put in infobox and map legend - for now the consensus is no. B. It was not me who wrote "Israeli Golan Heights" on those maps, so please go and fight your POV wars with the proper person, and better check before you start such. Cheers.GreyShark (dibra) 17:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
What color would the white stripe be? Red, green, tan?—SPESH531Other 18:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
@Spesh531: Your choice of brown stripes seems reasonable to me - it is the color of disputed areas during the war, so it may serve the purpose here to satisfy all those claiming that the map should include the Israeli-controlled/occupied/annexed/ruled/whatever Golan Heights, without going into adding Israel as one of belligerents in the legend.GreyShark (dibra) 12:56, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I was very clear with that you removed it was occupied while keeping "Israeli Golan Heights". I didn't say you added it here, though you have done it on other instances or changed to "annexed". As I said, the Israeli occupation should be reflected as it's relevant and if it should be added to the infobox is another issue, as FunkMonk and others have said from the start. The map also separates it with a dotted line. --IRISZOOM (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Look, the original status quo of the infoboxes said status in the Syrian Civil War. In this war, Israel has little to do with it, and the occupation of the Golan Heights by Israel has nothing to do with the Civil War. If you were to have a specific shade for the Israeli military, you might as well fill in the rest of Israel, and half of West Bank.—SPESH531Other 19:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
It's a map that shows Syria. As Golan Heights is recognized as occupied territory, there is no "rest of Israel" to talk about. It's not meant to specifically show Israeli military but as they occupy one part, they are noted for that. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I know Golan Heights is occupied. The original purpose of the map(s) were to show the situation in, strictly, the civil war. Israel is not involved in the war, just Syria as a whole (albeit to a minuscule extant). It is not a map that shows Syria, it is a map that shows the Syrian Civil War. Israel is not involved in the civil war. It just so happens that these series of conflicts are grouped together as the "Syrian Civil War" If any of the surrounding countries invaded Syria, and became a combatant of the war, than and only than you label the foreign country. What should be shown in color are the areas involved the civil war, which in this case, is Syria sans Golan Heights. The Golan Heights should not be colored in at all, colored the same as Lebanon, Turkey, and Israel. They do not have a military involvement in the civil war, so they are gray.—SPESH531Other 20:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if Israel is involved or not (it actually is, limited airstrikes on Hezbollah). The map depicts the military situation in Syria, what is the point of not indicating to readers that the Golan Heights is occupied? It adds context, rather than not explaining all of Syria's territories. DylanLacey (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment - current status of opinions regarding Supreme Deliciousness' wish to change the map box of 4 belligerents (Syrian Gov-t, Syrian opposition, ISIS, Kurds) in order to add Israel on the map of Syrian Civil War as 5th party:
I would like to point out that currently the Golan Heights are colored as disputed (brown), which may solve the issue with no need to add Israel into belligerents map legend (especially considering the notability or new direct war participants in recent coalition airstrikes).GreyShark (dibra) 18:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
No, there are at least 8 people agreeing with me, from this discussion:[15] we can also as EvergreenFir and Victor falk.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think this is the correct approach. If Israel is not going to be mentioned, then I don't think any colour like brown now should be used but rather gray as Lebanon, Israel etc. as Spesh531 mentioned above. It is also not either "disputed or unclear" who controls the Golan Heights and the status of it (occupied by Israel). --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, this discussion is not about "adding Israel as belligerent on Syrian Civil War maps", as Greyshark inaccurately presented this discussion, its about adding that Israel occupies the Golan Heights in a map showing the "current military situation in Syria", who denies that Israel is occupying the GH? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Israeli occupation is part of the 'current military situation in Syria'. It's a fact, regardless of whether editors think it infers belligerence. DylanLacey (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Make that six people who oppose the suggestion. Even though Israel is involved in the conflict its on a really low level (almost non-notable). EkoGraf (talk) 08:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
As I said 25 September, it is still unclear what this section is discussing, and people are still quarreling about which question is really at stake in this section. Therefore, I still can't have an opinion in this vague discussion. Please start a new section and state very shortly and sharply your proposal--in that way no one can accuse you any longer of 'not rightly understanding which question is under discussion here'. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Assad abuses
Reviving the previous discussion where it was agreed that this was biased and needed removing [from Syrian Civil War#Human rights violations]: "Inspections and probes in Syria by the UN and Amnesty International determined in 2012, 2013, and 2014 that the vast majority of abuses, as well as the largest in scale, were being committed by the Syrian government."
This is very strong anti-Assad language to have in the beginning paragraphs of the article. I think the previous sentence is plenty to sum up the UN's position "A United Nations panel investigating human rights abuses in Syria has asked the United Nations Security Council and influential states to refer Syria to the International Criminal Court.". DylanLacey (talk) 10:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
E - It is way outdated, so no, it is useless when the conflict has changed so dramatically since then. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Not true. There is a source for 2014. 209.243.45.172 (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
And what does it say exactly that aligns with our text? FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
"the UN and Amnesty International have found that the vast majority of abuses were carried out by the Syrian government" [16] - You couldn't wish for better wording that matches the context of the article. 209.243.45.172 (talk) 14:33, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Also here is an article from just last month [17](<second paragraph) 209.243.45.172 (talk) 14:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Here is another article from just last month [18] "The Syrian government remains responsible for the majority of the civilian casualties, killing and maiming scores of civilians daily" 209.243.45.172 (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Including it is undue weight. There is already multiple sentences alleging crimes on the Syrian government. The World War II article doesn't remotely have the level of biased language against the Nazis that this does against Assad. I am quite skeptical that Assad is responsible for the vast majority of crimes in 2014, given the Islamic State. Also, the reliable sources reflect what is ultimately an opinion by the UN, which has already been presented in other sentences. DylanLacey (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The Islamic State has killed 2,000-3,000 civilians. The regime has killed over 100,000 civilians, not counting the disappeared. But you don't have to take these facts alone - here is a source from september 2014 describing how the regime commits more crimes than ISIS [19]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.243.37.25 (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
I removed the ICC statement anyway to reduce redundancy. Five or six sources for one whole statement is too much anyway. 209.243.37.25 (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
The issue was not with that sentence, it was stating a fact, that the UN wants to refer Syria to the criminal court. The issue is with the biased sentence at the beginning of the article. I am not arguing that the Syrian government hasn't committed many crimes; I am arguing that is undue weight to have this much anti-Assad language 'vast majority', 'largest in scale' in the beginning of the article. This article should, and does, discuss Assad's crimes already, talking about the International Criminal Court, the death toll and torture and terror in state prisons, within the first few paragraphs. Even without this sentence it is harsher than the tone towards Nazi Germany in the WWII article. DylanLacey (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
You can't say "both the Syrian government and rebels committed human right abuses" and don't mention that its mostly the Syrian government doing it. For a clear example, that is like saying "both the UK and Germany committed war crimes during WWII" while failing to mention Germany's genocide campaign. Either we don't include rebel abuses in the opening, or when we do we avoid ludicrous levels of undue weight by adding the UN and Amnesty's statement. Its not "biased", it's reliably sourced facts and conclusive evidence. 12:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.243.37.25 (talk)
So let me repeat myself. Reliable and trusted sources state based on evidence and findings that the Syrian government does the vast majority of abuses. This fact is commonly and widely reported, and it has been reconfirmed as recently as last month. It therefore meets all Wikipedia criterion for inclusion. 209.243.37.25 (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Your analogy doesn't work. The World War II article beginning doesn't go on a spiel about how terrible Nazi Germany is, it refers to 'mass deaths of civilians, including the Holocaust'. It doesn't even mention Germany as the perpetrator! The Syrian Civil War article already mentions Syria as conducting 'severe human rights violations' and 'widespread torture and terror', without even including this biased sentence. By your logic, I could go to the WWII article, and flood the beginning of it with reliable sources about how the Soviet Union and the US were guilty of severe war crimes, which they were. The article should not be an anti-Assad mouthpiece, it should tell you the facts, which it already does (without that sentence). Just because something is 'reliably sourced' doesn't mean it belongs in the beginning. I am, again, not debating how horrible Assad is. DylanLacey (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Or we can do the other extreme, and make it like the Iraq war article, with the opening gushing out every single significant detail.
Who cares what another article does. We hold articles to the standards of the wikipedia guidelines, not other articles. As I told you, reliable sources, commonly reported, and even (though not exactly necessary) updated reconfirmations, all match the criteria for the wikipedia guidelines. 209.243.37.25 (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
As a matter of fact everyone who is interested in the overall quality of this article should care about how similar articles are done. And the key difference between the two articles discussed above is that the World War II one is a GA whereas the one on the War in Iraq is C-rated (pretty much like the present one). Kkostagiannis (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Islamic Front in the belligerents section
There is a glaring omission in the main belligerents section down the page. Nusra, FSA, ISIS etc are all mentioned but there is no paragraph description for the Islamic front even though they are one of the most important belligerents in the conflict. This need to be added. As well as this there should be some description of the coalitions(both current and former) among the various rebel groups. For example Syrian National Coalition, Ahl Al-Sham, Syrian Islamic Front and Syrian Islamic Liberation Front. Stumink (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes mr/mrs Stumink. Go ahead, make those sections. Don't first ask our permission, just do it. --Corriebertus (talk) 06:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Problem seems to be solved, I see now a section on ISIL (named as ISIS here). --Corriebertus (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
'Rojava' ? Never heard of.
The picture on top of the article shows 'current military situation'. The terms 'Government' and 'Islamic State' are clear. However, after closely following this war for more than a year, I've never heard of the term 'Rojava'--and also they're not mentioned in section 4 'Belligerents' in our article !!, which makes it totally unacceptable to use that term in this essential graphic. Please bear in mind we make Wikipedia mostly for not-experts, for ordinary citizens like your aunt or your hairdresser. I'm sure some of you experts know what a Rojava is or can be, but I want to see more commonly used indications, indications used in our section 4 'Belligerents', in this graphic. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I've read the term - aka Syrian Kurdistan. It means Western in Kurdish. We should use ISIL though per consensus on the ISIL article.Legacypac (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Map
It would be good to add a map to infobox, same as it is in Iraq Insurgency article (maybe even add it to the article itself, create "Map" section. The link is not enough. Also, why there are two map templates? Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War and Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map? Somebody should do something about it. --Novis-M (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
There aren't two templates. An article and a template are totally different. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, found that out already - they both use the same module. But still, it would be good to add that to the article or infobox. --Novis-M (talk) 16:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. There are neutrality issues with that map. Zenithfel (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC) Suspected sockpuppet of Sopher99. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Better something than nothing. At least we could make simplified version of it. Just like it is in Iraq insurgency infobox. So the folks can see which areas are roughly controlled by who and where the major fighting takes place. --Novis-M (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H25224,_Guernica,_Ruinen.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USS_New_Jersey_firing_in_Beirut,_1984.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/8/88/20140128024523%21Syrian_civil_war.png){kind=link}
