Talk:Russian intervention in the Syrian civil war/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Orphaned references in Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named ":0":

• From Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant: Wood, Graeme (15 February 2015). "What ISIS Really Wants". The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group. Retrieved 19 February 2015.
• From International reactions to the Ghouta chemical attack: Peter Walker and Tom McCarthy. "Syria: US secretary of state John Kerry calls chemical attack 'cowardly crime' – as it happened | World news". The Guardian (in Dutch). Retrieved 26 August 2013.
• From European migrant crisis: "Refugees and migrants crossing the Mediterranean to Europe". United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 11 September 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 12:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Where did this come from?

U.S. Air Force intelligence staff said Russian air strikes were not inflicted upon opposition forces supported by the United States.

– Haven't seen this report in any mainstream English media, and attirubtion to "U.S. air force staff" (I capped air force) sounds vague. Documentation? Sca (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This report seems to contradict unsourced statement, which I have deleted. Sca (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This report tells there are only ~80 rebels trained by USA. My very best wishes (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It isn't only a matter of direct training by the US; it has supplied TOWs to many different groups. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Moving a page

Stop messing around, or this article is going to get permanent page move protection. Read Wikipedia:Moving a page. DO NOT COPY AND PASTE AND CREATE REDIRECTS. If you are displeased with the title, start a page move vote on the ORIGINAL ARTICLE.Rajmaan (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, this is a unilateral move that must be reverted. If anyone wants to move this page, please make an RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I reported this to ANI [1]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Reactions-Media

Is the section necessary? IMO reactions ought to be limited to the involved parties and international bodies. I.e., ISIS, countries and orgs like Amnesty International). I can't see this section as justifiable, but maybe others do so I didn't remove it. Thoughts? Hollth (talk) 00:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Worldwide media reactions to the Russian-Iranian military intervention in Syria might eat up bandwidth better devoted to featuring noteworthy reactions from, as you said, ISIS, other countries, and groups like Amnesty International. Perhaps a vote should be taken as to whether or not this section should be kept?TH1980 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead an removed it. As there were no objections a vote seemed unnecessary. We can always vote if it is re-added, though I really cannot see why one would. Hollth (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Image

Why the Su-30 as main image? Declared Russian force is: 12 Su-24Ms, 12 Su-25SM and 6 Su-34s. But only 4 Su-30. If it has to be an image of an Su-30, there is a much more striking one, also copyright free, as the main image at that article. 81.152.16.52 (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

What a wholly misleading and anodyne image. The article needs an image of the Free Syrian Army being killed, by Russian bombing, in their own homes, like this one: [2]. 217.38.74.52 (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"The United States continues to pledge support to the Free Syrian Army..."

A sentence about the United States ends the lead paragraph. How is it relevant to this article at all? —suzukaze (t・c) 02:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, since ISIS does not have open support of any state. And alQaeda its considered by MSM a terrorist organization. The Only Anti Asssad Organization with u.s support its the FSA. Mr.User200 (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

This question may be out of ignorance on my part of Wiki structure, but shouldn't the side bar have 3 rows? It make it look like that the FSA & the USA are on the side of IS, when this is very much a 3 sided conflict. JanderVK (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Reactions

I've removed the "Arab media" reaction. An editorial in a non-notable website can hardly be called "Arab media".

I've left Wagdy Ghoneim and Ayat Oraby for the time being. However, are they really notable? Is there a reason to leave these two people and not any other "muslim leader" or "political commentator"? ZFR77 (talk) 09:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The photo used

The Su-30SM is NOT the main aircraft. Sorties are being flown by Su-24s, Su-25s and Su-34. I suggest changing the main photo to one of those aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexkvaskov (talk • contribs) 06:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. Su-30s are not as widely used in this intervention as the Su-25s. SkoraPobeda (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

About the title

I wonder why the name of this article appears as it is. Are Russia and Iran planning together or what? Why shouldn't there are two separate articles? --Horus (talk) 04:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the military escalation by Russia and Iran is a coordinated one with many sources in the articles providing ample evidence that they are working in conjunction with one another at political, strategic, operational and tactical levels. There are numerous references at the very start of the article attesting to this being a joint venture.Parsa1993 (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is this article named "Russian–Iranian military intervention" if Iran was already intervening in Syria since late 2013? [3] [4] Apparently, Iran now is only stepping up its presence in the region. Coltsfan (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

This is actually an aggression by Russia on the country of Syria. Bashar is falsely claiming to be leader of Syria, as he controls 15% of the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.148.91.237 (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

If the Russian operation is "aggression", so is the American one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.114.45.72 (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Iran did not intervene on 30 September as the first sentence of this article says. Russia intervened on 30 September. Iran had already intervened long before and been involved for the last three years. And sources to confirm to this can be found throughout the years. EkoGraf (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• UPDATE: The article title issue has been resolved, as the word "Iran" has been removed. Softlavender (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

"700+ surrendered in Daraa"

Does anyone have a source for the "700 FSA surrendered" in the infobox? It says nothing about it in the source given, and the only source I've seen saying that has been SANA. Utahwriter14 (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The Chinese Question

There are an overwhelming number of sources claiming either that China is already involved or that it will be very soon. BUT I have come across a single link in the article where it is apparently a goverment denial of all of the above! I cannot verify this however as the link is in Mandarin Chinese and not English. If there are any people who can provide better sources and material as references and to establish whether or not China is indeed involved at all I would be grateful.Parsa1993 (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/chinas-role-in-the-syria-crisis-revisited/ - but this is not about the general Syrian civil war, this article is about the Russian Federation's involvement. 98.67.0.74 (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Result of merge proposal

The proposal above is obviously in favor of merging. It looks to me as if consensus favors merging "Russian-led" into "Russian", so I'm going to redirect "Russian-led" to "Russian". Permit me to suggest that it remain that way while the actual merger is performed by someone more familiar with the subject than I: you can just copy/paste chunks from old revisions, and this should prevent most people from unmerging the two. Feel free to propose a name change (even immediately), i.e. having the article end up at "Russian-led". Should you propose this, and should it be successful, please remember that the "old" page must not be deleted for attribution reasons; it would probably be best to move the "old" page to something like "Talk:Russian-led military intervention in Syria/Second page history". Nyttend (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

The original article, created on 08:16 30 September 2015, is now a re-direct to this page, which was created on 06:39, 3 October 2015. This is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.6.208.178 (talk)

• Agree! No logic. The clone article (created by copypaste) must be redirected to original article, but not vice versa, as of now! Also above (in the first RM section) it was consensus for "in Syria" name, but against "in the Syrian Civil War". 178.94.165.139 (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC) P.S. Where is "merging"? Simply redirect is not "merging". Redirect was performed at some times by different users two days ago, but was reverted. 178.94.165.139 (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not going to merge anything because I'm not familiar enough with the subject to be able to merge content properly. As I noted above, others, more familiar with this topic, need to perform the merge; I put in a redirect to make it less likely that people will add extra content to the page that needs to be merged. Finally, remember that when two pages are merged, there's no real difference if we merge A into B or vice versa, aside from the title, and that can always be switched. Nyttend (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 30 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved - two premature unilateral, undiscussed moves on Sept 30 and Oct 2 have rendered this discussion moot as the current title has not been discussed. I would strongly recommend there be no further unilateral moves until the current title is properly discussed in another RM if necessary. Mike Cline (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War → Russian intervention in Syria – Russia made its intervention in Syria, but not in the civil war. 178.95.188.170 (talk) 21:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I would agree, however, there are other pages that conform to 'intervention in the Syrian Civil War' so for the sake of consistency I vote in favour of retaining the current name. Hollth (talk) 02:59, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• Jordanian intervention in the Syrian Civil War also nominated. No other articles with "intervention" in this topic. 178.95.188.170 (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - "intervention is Syria" is much less focused on the topic of the article; also one can ask what is exactly Syria now? If it means Syria (region) then no problem, but many refer so to the Syrian Arab Republic, which is a failed state, currently controlling only 30% of Syria (region). Some recognize Syrian Opposition as genuine Syria - the Arab League for instance. Finally, Syrian Civil War is interlinked with conflicts in Iraq and Lebanon; intervention is Syria unnecessarily limits the article's scope (Russia is clearly aiming to fight all Salafist and Islamist factions in the region, which are also present in Iraq, Lebanon, etc.).GreyShark (dibra) 10:07, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• But related article named "...in Syria": 2015 Russian air raids in Syria, in Syria, not in the Syrian Ciwil War. 178.95.188.170 (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• The name should stay as it is; "...Syrian Civil War" rather then "...in Syria"; also, Syrian Arab Republic while controlling 30% of territory, most of it is residential as the western part of the country is more settled. The current government is legitimate and as long as Assad's government is in power, it is still a legitimate government. When they depose him, at that moment he will not be a legitimate president. And we are talking and referring to Syria as a state (Syrian Arab Republic). Nazara45 (talk) 16:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Only if the name will be called Russian-led intervention in Syria. Afterall, the article American-led intervention in Syria isn't called the "American intervention in the Syrian Civil War". SkoraPobeda (talk) 22:29, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• There are precedents for this title format (e.g. Indian intervention in the Sri Lankan Civil War or United States involvement in the Mexican Revolution). That said, other titles are irrelevant.

The American-led intervention in Syria has the Islamic State as a primary target and it's only one aspect (the other being Iraq) of the regional anti-ISIL campaign. Russia's airstrikes, on the other hand, have a broader target: ISIL and (to a greater extent) foreign-backed rebel groups that are exclusive to the Syrian Civil War, hence the title. 197.36.19.14 (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• This is only the 3rd day of their intervention, Russia is already bombing ISIS in al-Raqqa. They might bomb ISIS to a greater extent soon, since Russia is in negotiations with Iraq on striking them together. Also, the US-led coalition is helping the Euphrates Volcano, which includes the Kurdish YPG and FSA. How is that not being involved in the Syrian Civil War? Not to mention that they also bombed the Al-Nusra Front and Khorasan - groups exclusive to the Syrian Civil War. SkoraPobeda (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support per others. EkoGraf (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. More precise title, and the war is not really Civil, but includes many "foreign" sides. My very best wishes (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment This remains a Civil War by all definitions. Most civil wars in history have outside countries supporting various sides. An international war involves Country A attacking Country B, while a civil war involves factions A & B (or more) fighting for control of a country. Legacypac (talk) 06:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per GreyShark's rationale. 197.36.19.14 (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support - Keep titles simple. DylanLacey (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support - I feel the title accurately sums up what is happening in Syria regarding Russian and Iranian intervention in the war.TH1980 (talk) 18:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support agreeing with points made by DylanLacey and TH1980. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 22:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - Only if the name will be called Russian-led intervention in Syria per SkoraPobeda's rationale. Israel is coordinating with the Russians. I had a source deleted showing Iraq was also supporting. Looking likely will have to change to Russian-led intervention in Syria and Iraq or Russian-led intervention in the Middle East soon. [5]. I won't even mention Yemen. Guru Noel (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose "intervention in Syria" is just to vague. This is about active military intervention in the armed conflict. Previous interventions, such as supplying arms, are covered elsewhere. Moreover Russia has been intervening in Syria, the country, in various ways since 1956 if not earlier, and in the region for much longer than that. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC).
  

Will wait for "Syrian intervention in Syria", yes.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.211.13.82 (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support This is a military conflict which involves Russia.Don Brunett (talk) 14:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Don Brunett

America (US) is led to war by Israel while Rusia - do not sem to be led by .

• "Russian military intervention
• "American-led intervention

So the title croud forced asymetry (contrary to zpooks ordination?:) reveal up some reality. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.65.242 (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Russian intervention in Syria, due to it is an intervention in Syria. Compare: 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, not the intervention in the War in Donbass. 178.94.165.139 (talk) 11:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal

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.

---

It has been proposed that this page be merged with the Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War article.David O. Johnson (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Since this is not a formal RFC, this article can be merged on 02:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC) if there's consensus. Epic Genius (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support merge. The articles are nearly identical and need to be merged immediately. The title name issue can be hammered out later. If the two articles don't get merged within 10 days, I'm going to AfD the newest one, which is Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. These cut-and-paste article creations and renames and redirects need to stop immediately, and anyone who does anything further of that nature will be reported to admins for sanctions. Softlavender (talk) 08:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge. A merger only makes sense due to the duplicate nature of both articles.TH1980 (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge of two articles. However, note above that an overwhelming majority already voted that the article be titled Russian intervention in Syria and not Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Also, Iranian shouldn't be in the title of the article since Iran has been intervening since 2012. This article should be focused on the Russian military intervention exclusively. Or at least be considered a Russian-led intervention. EkoGraf (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge. Just to be clear, the Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War article should be merged with this one. Not vice versa, since that one is the clone article. SkoraPobeda (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete duplicate article with/without merging. 178.94.165.139 (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge meaning that remaining page will be named "Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War". No deletion please, since a part of the content need be recycled. My very best wishes (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge and possibly also 2015 Russian air raids in Syria. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC).
  
• Merge and keep the name Russian-led military intervention in Syria or Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War but not Russian–Iranian military intervention. Iran is already intervening in Syria. Coltsfan (talk) 15:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Delete duplicate article without merging, so tired of people cut and pasting new articles Lipsquid (talk) 17:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support merge: into Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. 178.135.80.241 (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment the article needs to have parity with the American-led intervention in Syria article. I would suggest that the twin articles be named Russian military intervention in Syria and American military intervention in Syria. Juno (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I reverted an IP's merge from the Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War article into this article. A comparison of the two articles can be seen here. If anyone has any problems with this, please notify me. Epic Genius (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Also, I Support a merge. Epic Genius (talk) 21:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. If I understand correctly, David O. Johnson proposed to merge "this page" ("Russian-led military intervention in the Syrian Civil War") with [into] Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Hence the title of new page will be "Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War"? That is what people are voting for? "Russian-led" would be misleading because Russia does not lead any other countries in the operation. My very best wishes (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Exactly right. Hence, the proposal to merge this page, "Russian-led", to the other page, "Russian". Epic Genius (talk) 22:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree. Russian-led is not quite factual. Coltsfan (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge: into Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 23:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge Far to much overlap in scope for 2 articles to be necessary. Hollth (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge These articles have too much overlap. Merging them will create a better, more in-depth piece.Zeke1999 (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: So you guys want to merge this article into that one because of the dislike of name "Russian-led"? If you're forgetting, this is the original article. That one is a clone. Therefore if you want to have another vote on changing the name, we can do that. But lets not merge this article into a clone just because of a name change that was voted for recently. SkoraPobeda (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Clarification: This is the original article, with the original page history. The other article was an unauthorized cut&paste duplicate. The duplicate should eventually be deleted, and this article, with the correct edit history, should be retained. We can worry about the title later. Softlavender (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The original article was named "Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War". It has been nominated for deletion, but decided to keep (see here). It has been unilaterally moved to a new title (apparently this one) without proper discussion and consensus, and therefore should be moved back. Here is related ANI discussion [6].My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
    • This article was originally called "Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War". It was then unilaterally named "Russian–Iranian military intervention in Syria". And then today, it was moved to "Russian-led military intervention in Syria". This current title was chosen through the discussion "Requested move 30 September 2015" on the top. You yourself supported a more precise title, perhaps it wasn't this one. Either way, the new article named Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War is a clone. That is why we should merge any new info in there into this one. SkoraPobeda (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
        • No, the discussion "Requested move 30 September 2015" on the top was renaming to a different title, and it has not been closed yet as "consensus to move". My very best wishes (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Question: What should the relationship between these articles and Russia's role in the Syrian Civil War be? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

This isn't the place to ask that question. That parent article has existed since 2012. The article under discussion was created on September 30, 2015. You may ask your question in a separate and unrelated thread either on this page or on that article's talk page, but please avoid side topics in this focused merge discussion. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering more along the lines of whether or not 1 of the articles being discussed (presumably the Russian-led military intervention in Syria article) would be more suitable for a merger w/that page. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That parent article has existed since 2012 and is over-large already, so the answer is a definite no as concerns this discussion. The two articles under discussion in this merge debate are nearly identical to each other and were created in the past five days within three days of each other. If you have any other questions or comments unrelated to this particular merge proposal, please create a separate and unrelated thread either on this page or on that article's talk page. Please avoid side topics/thoughts/questions in this merge discussion focused on these two articles. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support merge The articles are almost identical. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge of two articles under the title of "Russian military intervention in Syria" rather than "Russian-led". There are no sources which indicate that Hezbollah, Iran, the Shi'ite militias are being "led" by Russia. If there are such sources then they should be made known in order to justify the current title of the article which as of now is inaccurate. Almost all of the other belligerents on that table have been engaged extensively in this war for many years. Russia intervened on the 30 September so how could they have led the intervention?? Parsa1993 (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy merge per WP:SNOW outcome seen above. I don't think prolonging this discussion any further will net any different result. --benlisquare_T•C•E 13:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Question. All support merge. But two twin articles are in wiki as of now. How much time until real merging will be allowed? 7 days? Month? 178.94.165.139 (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge or Delete of one of the articles. Nezi1111 (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy merge of cut and paste recreation (if there's anything worth moving across). If not, this article should be deleted (with name space salted). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2015 (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.

Closing this as "merge". I'm going to protect this and two other articles fully, since discussion at WP:ANI suggests that we have a good deal of overlap that will warrant a histmerge. Of course, I'll unprotect as soon as I finish the histmerge or as soon as I realise that one or all shouldn't be merged; the protection will be done simply to prevent inconvenient editconflicts. Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

"Anti-IS coalition"

What exactly is this thing? The U.S. does not seem to be listed as a belligerent in the Syrian Civil War. Smth quite important seems to be missing there.Axxxion (talk) 15:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Or is it identical with Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve?Axxxion (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This page is not about Syrian Civil War, but about Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Hence one of the sides should be Russia (and allies of Russia in the operations - this is Iran, but not US or other NATO forces), and another "side" should be forces attacked by Russian military (this is also not US forces, but possibly some "US-supported" rebels). My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

And now it's been replaced with the nonsensical "anti-Russia". This page is out of control. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, yes [7]. It certainly is. My very best wishes (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

FSA is supported by USA, ADD them NOW!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.86.85.150 (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You will have to source that they were targeted by the Russians though please. They did their reconnaissance well. Guru Noel (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Add Igor Konashenkov Russian commander

http://video.news.com.au/v/402178/Russia-DefMins-Konashenkov-confirms-results-of-strikes-on-IS-in-Syria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.111.40 (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

He is the Defense Ministry spokesman, not an actual commander of these operations. SkoraPobeda (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

CIA and Obama

I have two questions over here:

1. Why is Obama listed in the Commanders and leaders? Is he leading an army in Syria against Russia? I can understand in context of the Military intervention against ISIL article, but why this in one?
2. (this one also works for the Obama question) Why is the CIA listed in the infobox? It's because they are funding and arming the FSA, right? Well, so is the UK. And France. And most of Europe. And the Gulf States. This doesn't make sense. I would understand if the CIA was giving weapons to the FSA with the sole purpose of fighting Russia (that would make the US a belligerent in this aspect of the war) but this is not the case for this particular article.

Since both the CIA and Obamas name have been removed and then added again i'm bringing this situation to you guys here at the talk page so we can decide this once and for all. Coltsfan (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed the CIA from the infobox before I saw your comment. My reasoning is that the CIA itself is not active in the war.David O. Johnson (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I can understand the Supported by thing (that is already in the article, although is incomplete cuz is not only the US and the PYD that are supporting the FSA), but as a 'belligerent' and as a Units involved? It doesn't make much sense. Coltsfan (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that including rebels "supported by US" (as in current version) is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If one member of the coalition is listed, all should be. If we're going to take that approach, I suggest using a collapsible list. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the lists are way too long. I would rather remove all "supporting" sides and only leave direct participants. My very best wishes (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Coltsfan (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

5,613 killed, wounded and deserted

I know Russians are not fond of half-mesures, but come on... this is a huge number. Desertions are hardly estimated. I think a blog post like this http://toinformistoinfluence.com/2015/10/04/russia-kills-2488-people-in-one-day-in-syria/ is not enough of a reference for such strong assertions. Remember infobox is for often interpreted as uncontested facts. We need another reference, and Minimum-Maximum estimations. Barraki (talk) 08:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is the U.S. in the lede?

I am going to go ahead and put on my flame retardant suit and ask, why is the U.S. in the lede if the U.S. is not a belligerent in the military intervention. Also, saying the U.S. is against Al Nusra (the Al Qaeda Affiliate) and against ISIS, but also against Assad and the Syrian Government, leaves an obvious question, who does the U.S. support and under what pretense do the belong in the lede if they are not taking a very active role in the conflict? And before it starts, I am not an America hater. This is a complicated web of topics, but it was stated that this article would stick to Russian activities in Syria, but continuously reiterates U.S. positions using U.S. sources. Again, why is the US in the lede? Maybe the article needs to be about the entirety of the conflict or we should stick to Russia and Syria vs. those they have determined to be "the terrorists". Lipsquid (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again moved US reactions as inappropriate from the lead.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the content move. Lipsquid (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Reactions

What are peoples thoughts on media reactions? Imo this should be removed (I did that but it was re-added with the merge). Hollth (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody have any objects to me removing it? If I don't see any in a couple of days, I'm going to delete it.Hollth (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Media reactions are opinions, the opinions of various pundits sitting in warm cozy offices representing the "media" do not matter in a war. The opinions that matter are the opinions of the governments of the countries or organizations involved in the conflict. All other opinions are not very informative or useful. I would also delete them. Lipsquid (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Sadly there are FB editors who believe that the opinions of everyone and their brothers are relevant about everything. You will be fighting an uphill battle and revert any attempt of yours to remove said opinions. Sorry.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• These are not somebody′s relations′ opinions if only because they are published in mainstream mass media, and thus are of interest.Axxxion (talk) 09:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Just because something is published in a mainstream media outlet or by a RS it is not necessarily noteworthy, nor is it necessarily encyclopaedic. I see no reason to have a repository of op-eds from unknown people. Either they are facts that cannot be added to the article, in which case they needn't be in the media section or they are speculation and allegations, in which case why include them? Hollth (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

It has already been reverted back and forth 3 times. Only one person bothered to post on why "Media Reactions" should stay. Uphill battle indeed. Lipsquid (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• I do not support the idea of having a "repository of op-eds". But thus far, we do not have it. The very first aggregated opinion/analysis bit effectively represents background info important for understanding the overall context of the event from the Russian perspective, so i would not object to moving that particular bit to the "background section", or even the lede; but technically speaking, this is a shared expert opinion. Others may represent kind of analytical propaganda salvos, but all the names are heavy-weight think-tank/journalism pundits who are effectively mouthpieces of powerful establishments and thus are most relevant for elucidating the context.Axxxion (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

What is the "Iran's involvement" section doing here?

Outside any discussion of Russian-Iranian cooperation, why is this section here? And as that section does not discuss any cooperation clearly, I think it should be removed and merged back (if there is anything to merge) to Iranian involvement in the Syrian Civil War. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Why? Maybe because Wikipedia articles on controversial or ongoing events are often manipulated through off-topic content selection, cherrypicking, OR, and synthesis to convey messages that are not supported by facts or legitimate content. But you know all about doing that, from your EEML days. That aside, I agree with you; that section should be removed from this article as off-topic material. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes proposal is seconded (removed and merged back - if there is anything to merge).Nannadeem (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest to keep this section, but re-write it to more clearly reflect Russian-Iranian military cooperation during this war. My very best wishes (talk)

Agree. Coltsfan (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it better now? I tried to make it brief and remove parts not pertinent to Russian/Iranian co-operation Hollth (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Friedman: 'journalistic hot-air salesman'?

“Friedman exhibits on a weekly basis one of the severest cases known to science of Lippmann's condition, named for the legendary journalistic hot-air salesman, Walter Lippmann, and alluding to the inherent tendency of all pundits to swell in self-importance to zeppelin-like dimensions. Friedman's conceit is legendary. "I have won not one, but two Pulitzer prizes, and I won't stand for being called a liar by the next president," George Stephanopoulos recalls in his memoir Friedman as shouting down the phone during the Clinton transition in early 1993.” I and I: The World According to Tom Friedman, Alexander Cockburn, Published Oct 3, 2000

In light of this and other low opinions of Friedman, how much value should Wikipedia put on his Wishin and Hopin in relation to Russian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.247.98 (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

So, what changes do you propose we make? GAB^Hello! 15:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Just delete his wishful thinking. Does his over-blown and fact-free remark add anything to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.247.98 (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I imagine we could shorten the quote a bit. What does everyone else think? GAB^Hello! 15:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

WP is not a platform for blather. I think wikiquote is a nice place for people's quoted opinions that have no business in an encyclopedia. I would delete it. Lipsquid (talk) 01:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree - lose it. 68.19.5.88 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes please: Delete Nannadeem (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I am going to deleted it, which seems to have general consensus Lipsquid (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Friedman seems a well esteemed American opinionist, who, like any serious political commentator, ofcourse has fervent, perhaps even embittered, adversaries (see comment in this section, 18Oct,15:27,anonymous,"hot-air salesman"; 19Oct.Lipsquid,"blather"). Such scolding (2x) doesn't diminish his status and importance a bit--rather on the contrary. Mr. Friedman won thrice the Pulitzer Prize (1983,1988,2002) and writes weekly in The New York Times; that illustrates his status. Disagreement with his opinion is no good reason to delete it. I'll place it back. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with Corriebertus on this one. If we are going to allow media reactions (which I disagree with), then Friedman should stay given his notability. Having said that, the quote probably should be shortened. Hollth (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hear, hear!Axxxion (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

While disagreeing with Friedman's remarks might not be the best reason to deleting it, should not his remarks have some relation to the world as it is - and not the wishin and hopin of the neo-cons? Then again, does not Friedman's sexed-up NYT report indicate just how embittered some are about the almost total failure of US policy in Syria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.190.145 (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 12 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus despite good support initially, some excellent points were raised upon relisting. No consensus was found. (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 23:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War → Russian intervention in Syria – The majority voted for change last time, but the RM was closed due to unilateral page moves. DylanLacey (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support as nominator; keep titles simple. DylanLacey (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Agreed, we already have an article called Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War. SkoraPobeda (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Makes sense and conforms with other articles. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support as a more concise title, but one should remember about a similar military operation by Soviet military in Syria much earlier, it involved ~17,000 Soviet solders [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support - no need for extended version.--Staberinde (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support Shorter is sweeter. I have also started the Russian-Syrian-Hezbollah offensive for the next chapter in this escapade, if anyone wants to help with the name and/or content on that. Guru Noel (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support A simpler name is better. Coltsfan (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support The longer name doesn't really add anything. GAB^Hello! 20:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Conditional support as long as all side articles, duplicate articles, content forks, double redirects, and other such nonsense are avoided or deleted/merged. Softlavender (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• Firm Oppose the meaning of the two is completely different. "Intervention" could mean and could cover anything; "involvement" can also mean and cover just about anything. "Military intervention" is specific and is unambiguous. That is what an article title should be. Note that those wanting this title change are giving no reasoning for that change. Saying "it is shorter" is not a reason at all, it is a description. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Saying 'it is shorter' is a perfectly legitimate reason. Titles should be succint, not ridiculously long. DylanLacey (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Just saying "it is shorter" does not display any reasoning at all so how can it be called a legitimate reason? Saying "it is shorter and that will be better because it is more succinct" is a reason, but it is an extremely weak reason, given that it is merely one word shorter, and it can be dismissed given that the loss of that one word from the title throws open the title and the whole article to all sorts of misinterpretations and vagueness. Wikipedia:Article titles does not say that a title should be succinct, it says that it should be no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject. The removal of the word "military" removes a word that unambiguously identifies the article's subject. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Changed from Support to Oppose as "Military intervention" is specific and is unambiguous as opposed to the vague generality that "InterventIon" would imply. Are the Russians intervening in any non-military way?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the current title makes it clear it is something like a "boots on the ground" (or, in this case "in the air") intervention. This article was created after and deals with events after Russia's decision to use its aircraft for offensive missions in Syrian airspace, which suggests that other sort of interventions (such as supplies of armaments) by Russia are not "military inventions" as such. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Relisting comment - Despite majority of support, I see some merit on opposition. --George Ho (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comments: I consider Russian response to combat terrorism is rational and a cleanup action, although in Syria there are more countries intervening through proxies or openly. Thus I propose "Russian intervention in Syria combating terrorism" Nannadeem (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The above suggestion is further evidence that the current title is exactly what is required. Change it to something that is vague and imprecise and it opens the article up to all sorts of pov problems. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support per others. Unnecessary lengthy title. Look at the title of American-led intervention in Syria. EkoGraf (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Once again, not an ounce of reasoning is presented to support the title change. Why is it "unnecessary lengthy"? Why do you think the word "military" is unnecessary? What can you say to counter the argument that "intervention" alone is vague and imprecise? What do you have against the use of the phrase "Syrian Civil War"? What argument are you presenting for the use of "Syria" as its alternative? This isn't a ballot box election and all you need is to cast a yes or no vote - some reasoning is also required in order to validate that vote. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - the intervention is specifically in the Syrian crisis (which means current conflict in and around Syria). Russian intervention in Syria could also mean other things, like the Soviet support to Syria in the 1973 War. Furthermore, 2 out of 3 parallel articles are named "intervention in the Syrian Civil War" - Jordanian intervention in the Syrian Civil War, Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War, with only one exceptional American-led intevention in Syria. Furthermore, Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War articles are also named "in the Syrian Civil War" - Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War, Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War, Iranian involvement in the Syrian Civil War.GreyShark (dibra) 21:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Just because it could mean other things doesn't mean it does. Russian ≠ Soviet. For example, Joseph Stalin was Georgian. It was a Soviet intervention, not a Russian one. The involvement articles are about 'involvement in the Syrian Civil War' in general. Intervention articles are very specific; they are about American/Russian etc military action in Syria, the phrase 'in the Syrian Civil War' is unnecessary and redundant. DylanLacey (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - The article describes Russia's military operations in the Syrian Civil War. This takes place in Syria of course, but I don't see any justification for replacing the name of the war with the location of the war. Just the fact that the name of the location is shorter is not a good reason. Which war Russia has intervened in is a more relevant part of the title than its location.--Orwellianist (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Article titles should be concise; no longer than necessary. Russia has never intervened in Syria before, and Syria has been home to one war - the Syrian Civil War - since Russia's independence in 1991. So what other conflict could Russian intervention in Syria be referring to, other than the Syrian Civil War? DylanLacey (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I disagree with your interpretation of conciseness. Take 464 BC Sparta earthquake for example. There were no other earthquakes in 464 BC that were recorded by historians, so by your logic we could do away with Sparta and call it 464 BC earthquake, as that title could not be referring to anything else. However, that would be ludicrous, I would argue that the location is an essential part of that title, even if unnecessary by your standards.
    • I also disagree with your definition of conciseness. You are simply counting letters here, which is meaningless. It is true that in this case the name of the location is shorter than the name of the war. It could have been the other way around, the name of the war could be shorter than the name of the location, e.g. "in Bosnia and Herzegovina" vs "in the Bosnian War". Were we to use the name of the war in that case, just because it has less number of letters? That standard is not a sensible one. What you are suggesting is not decreasing the number of details in the name, but replacing one detail with the other, i.e. the war with the location. And I am saying no, I think the name of the war is more essential than the name of the location, so I see no point in that replacement.--Orwellianist (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose 100% clear, exact and neutral title. Length irrelevant. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • How exactly is length irrelevant? It is Wikipedia policy that article titles be concise; "The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." DylanLacey (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Reactions" section

There is a long standing tradition that "Reactions" section is for official reactions. There are zillions of analysts happy to spill their brains about Putin. We need facts in encyclopedia, not claptrap. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Good luck trying to remove it. I agree 100%, but there is a contingent here that insist the blather of pundits is some how just as relevant as factual material. Lipsquid (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"Official" responses are hardly fact-based in the first place... you can often find far more insights and facts from non-official so-called "pundit" sources. They illustrate the way the events an article describes were perceived by various parties while they took place. Very important historically, stubborn elitist insistence on deleting "claptrap" is basically soft censorship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.52.222 (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Targets of airstrikes

According to mainstream sources, the targets of Russian airstrikes are usually not ISIS, but rebel groups that are enemies of ISIS and Assad government [9]. That should be noted in the intro. In addition using sources like Sputnik (news agency) for this page is questionable. My very best wishes (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

This article heavily downplays the fact that Russia has actually been directing most of its firepower at non-ISIL targets, both secular (Free Syrian Army, etc.) and Islamist (Nusra, etc.). I don't have the time or energy right now to try to fix it, and I'm sure I'd encounter plenty of resistance anyway, but this article is shambolic as it stands. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's ridiculous how the intro is worded. The intro essentially takes the claims of the Russian government at face value, ignoring that these claims are very much doubted by man reliable sources. Note also that when it comes to the US military intervention, it leaves out that the fact that this is an intervention of a broad coalition of 30 countries. And uses the rather loaded word "ostensibly" to cast doubt on the assertion that this intervention is directed against IS. A very one-sided intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.72.118 (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

This is mostly fixed right now, I think. My very best wishes (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

-Agreed that the intro should be re-worded. Al Nusra and Jaysh Al Fatah are not militant groups but terrorists affiliated to Al Qaida and known to collaborate with ISIL and this is far from being Original Research. Speaking of ISIL, how can it not be mentionned in the same sentence when Russian officials have repeateadly affirmed the operation is against it as well? This intro is clearly lacking objectivity imo. Lozion (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

In essence the exact same battle as the political one. with like 20 to 30 groups operating there with allegiances to whoever. Surprising to me in this was that, while is was known that Al Nusra (among others) had allied themselves to ISIS, USA at that point in time kept saying non-ISIS targets were were targetted... it almost sounds as if they disregarded this, where they usually are "so imformed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.109.63.17 (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Russian ground forces in Syria

Speaking of the "military intervention" of russia into the syria/syrian war, I only see comments about the airstrikes they have commited but in the mean time Russia has also sent other weapons over the borders and into syria territory. Among which are 6 T-90 MBT's. Why is this not part of the 'military assets' staged in Syria? 195.109.63.17 (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are the SAA, Iran, and Hezbollah here?

This page is supposed to be dealing with the Russian intervention, correct? Why are these three factions on the page and in the infobox?--Nihlus1 (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This pages is dealing with intervention in the Syrian Civil War, correct? How many factions did Russia affect by its intervention? (Of course some think that Putin did it just for fun of kicking Obama's ass...) - üser:Altenmann >t 03:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah because they are such good friends that Putin taught it to be a funny joke. And its not that America was doing a whole lot to actually try to end it. I understand why they wish to talk, but lets face it: that option has expired long ago, especially when groups like ISIL are involved. Je M'exuse, singed it 195.109.63.17 (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Make mention Of French and Russian Cooperation?

Putin order RU forces to Cooperate with France as allies. This should be mentioned in some form.

https://www.rt.com/news/322436-russia-strikes-syria-putin/

68.194.210.70 (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Flight 9268 investigation leading to more air strikes in Syria

BBC news report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34840943 refers to IS in Sinai Province (ISIL-SP) claiming responsibility, and that 'Mr Putin said that Russia's air strikes in Syria "must not only be continued - they must be intensified"'. No mention of Russia going after terrorists in Sinai though. Please find a source with details of Russia's reaction to Flight 9268. John a s (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Derogatory term.

The word Nusayri its a derogatory term for Alawites used by Sunnis. Its unenciclopedic to link that word directly to the Alawite article. At least a coment in brackets should indicate this.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

For fun

http://www.aif.ru/society/safety/za_dvoe_sutok_rossiyskie_samolety_sovershili_pochti_2300_vyletov_v_sirii Axxxion (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead section

Adding 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown to lead - this is the first time a NATO power has shot down a Russian/Soviet military aircraft since the 50's -- Callinus (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Observatory For Human Rights is not a reliable source

Syrian Observatory For Human Rights is not reliable, end of.

And why? Editor abcdef (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

  Becouse behind that grandiouse name is just one guy who live in Conventry, guy is internet joke for last three year.

The article about it admits the organization is a single man in the UK and none of his statistics are independently verified except, so he claims, by his "own sources". It's basically original research rather than a source. -Toomanyaccountsargh (talk) 23:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Chinese foreign ministry statement.December,4 2015.

Russia’s anti-terrorist operation in Syria is in line with international law, and China has always supported it, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying told a press briefing on Friday. "We have always supported the efforts of various countries, including Russia, to ensure international security. As for Russia’s strikes against terrorist organizations in Syria, we have also expressed our support previously and noted that Russia carried out the fight against terrorist organizations in Syria at the invitation of the government of this country," the diplomat said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.241.12.15 (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Casualties report

I see that casualties are only reported by SOHR which is an anti-Syrian government organisation based in UK and ran by a single man named Rami Abdulrahman using the alias Osama Suleiman that get his reports remotely from obscure sources in Syria, which has indeed been criticized numerous times for selectivity. SOHR gained its notoriety from being cited by virtually every western media ; what propelled it to the only trusted source on the matter in western mainstream narrative on the subject. My suggestion is that a serious work of information gathering from various sources should be undertaken for accuracy sake. Sourcing only from SOHR is highly unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.102.11.79 (talk) 00:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Proxy war

@Legacypac: — Hi. I reverted this edit because it changed the meaning of the sentence. The original point was that this was seen as a potential proxy war specifically between Russia and the US, with no fewer than six references making that same point. Changing "Russia and the US" to "several groups" completely loses the import. Yes, many, many groups are involved in this conflict, but it's the looming head-to-head involvement of these two "fearsome militaries" (as one of the headlines says) that concerns the rest of the world. I think the wording should go back to "the United States and Russia." — Gorthian (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, but it is more a proxy war on the ground between Iran and the Gulf Arabs (which can be easily sourced). You can sort of get to a Russia=US fight on the ground if you say Russia backs Assuad vs US supported rebels but its weak because the US backed rebels and Kurds are only supported by US airstrikes against ISIL, which Russia also opposes. It is not cold war style Commies vs NATO with each picking a side Vietnam or Korea style. Legacypac (talk) 04:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Abu Ali al-Anbari is dead

http://aranews.net/2015/12/baghdadis-advisor-killed-in-iraqi-raid/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marik-modder (talk • contribs) 16:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Beware of the Media

Make sure that you have multiple sources from multiple sides before editing the article with new events. people make claims without evidence all the time for ongoing events. For example, this article implied Russian ground troops were deployed (in the "Strength" section), but the source is a deleted article. (Edit: I removed it) Not to mention the bias that the Western media has against Russia, and the bias the Russian media has for Russia. Just be careful. Sovetus (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Just because a free and democratic Press (the West) sometimes writes ugly truths about Putin's regime's actions does not make it "biased." Bias is the deliberate ignoring of facts and presentation of news in a non-objective way. 68.19.10.204 (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Might not that be framed in another way? Because some reporters write about Russian involvement in Syria, does not mean that such reports are a true reflection of events. Is the “democratic Press” always free of bias? Why all the questioning of Russian news media, when Western information outlets are just as able of ignoring the facts and presenting ‘news’ in a less-than-objective way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.225.101 (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User 68.19.10.204, your extremely emotionally charged claim that "the West" media is "free and Democratic" and points out "ugly truths" about the "Putin regime" basically disqualifies you as a legitimate perspective. I am sorry but it is abundantly clear that the English-language wikipedia is insanely hostile to official enemies of the USA government.... which seems to include Russia lately for whatever reason. And it obviously includes the current Syrian government as well. All these wiki articles on anything politically contentious in the world today are essentially propaganda functioning on behalf of the USA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.45.52.222 (talk) 01:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That basically proves the point how "free" the west world really is. Especially when its hinted in the direction of America (USA). Russia might turn and twist a thruth in their favor. They have shown it before. but USA does the exact same thing. enough sources on the interwebs to back this up, for either side. Because USa doesn't like that Russia has intervened, makes themw ant to cast a dark shadow over Russia, regardless of whoever is correct in whatever action/reaction they take. This entire intervention is as much a political ordeal than an actual warzone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.109.63.17 (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

All governments play fast and loose with the truth. Get over it. To say one liar is more righteous than the other is laughable. Lipsquid (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum. GAB^Hello! 17:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

No longer a proxy war between the US and Russia, lots of groups involved

I am removing the "proxy war" statement from the lede. There are now four groups fighting in Syria, The Saudi Led Arabs, The US Coalition, The Russians with the Syrian Government and the European Coalition which is working with both the US and Russia, led by France and Germany. It can't be called a proxy war anymore. http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/22/opinions/obaid-saudi-coalition-vs-terror/ http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/11/hollande-calls-grand-coalition-defeat-isil-151117033017279.html and you can find amillion other articles with people no longer choosing neither the US nor the Russia side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lipsquid (talk • contribs) 23:07, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Russian army

If Russia has deployed tanks to Syria, army units must have been deployed. Unless these are more "little green men"! I suggest that Russian Ground Forces and T-90 etc be added to the ORBAT.Royalcourtier (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion ?

Please read the article and express your opinion, is there any grounds to consider these facts as supporting IS? Thank. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/research-paper-isis-turke_b_6128950.html

in addition http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/turkey-has-spent-years-allowing-jihadist-groups-to-flourish-so-beware-its-real-reasons-for-shooting-a6747161.html

www.infowarscom/former-nato-commander-turkey-is-supporting-isis/

There is a separate article about the relations of Turkey and ISIS where this material might be more appropriate to discuss.84.30.185.238 (talk) 12:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

This article read more participants, I am not an expert in the English-speaking media, so I'm curious to know how much they are authoritative (that are on my links). 87.252.229.3 (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Fist two links are RS. Huffington post can be opinion or news, so be careful there. Info wars is not a RS as they publish a lot of conspiracy theories and bias reporting. Legacypac (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

use of white phosphorous

is not mentioned anywhere in the article, even though it's received significant coverage (for example here, here or here.Volunteer Marek 09:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I checked these articles and these are just accusations and speculations by so called unspecified "opposition" and "activists" to Syrian government. Highly unreliable as most of these groups(with minor exceptions such as Kurds and SDF) are ALQ related and jihadis. In fact one of the sources clearly states "Activists on the ground in the Isis stronghold in Syria have reported the use of the banned substance white phosphorus." I am still waiting if China will join in against these threats[10]--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually the rain of fire videos shot in Idlib and claimed as being white phosphorus are in fact magnesium incendiary flares from 9M22S rockets fired by SAA from Multiple Rocket Launchers on an open sky ammunition depot. The issue has been discussed by experts the very week it showed up. 9M22S Rocket and The actual video showing the attack and the secondary explosions on the ground of ammo cooking off. Moreover I'd like to point that all the articles you cited are from media whose editorial line tradition has always been anti-Russian, anti-non western aligned political entities.

You guys' personal opinions are noted. Nonetheless this claim is being reported on in reliable sources. The Times headline is "Russia hits Syria with banned white phosphorus" which is pretty unequivocal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

One (the main?) source for the claim - these "activists" - is Raqqa Is Being Slaughtered Silently. Is this the one that is supposedly "ALQ related and jihadis"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The YouTube link provided isn't sufficient to discredit reporting by the Times or Independent that White Phosphorus may have been used, possibly by the French and more likely by the Russians (or maybe both). Phrase the allegations in terms of reports from opposition activists, witnesses or whatever, but there's no justification for excluding this material. -Darouet (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Darouet and Marek are correct. Youtube is not a reliable source and the Times and Independent are, so the information ought to be included. Hollth (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Rusian violations of Turkish airspace

Does this rate a mention:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/06/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-russia-idUSKCN0RZ0FT20151006

I imagine it might, but I wanted to ask first.TH1980 (talk) 04:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Well Turkey isn't part of Syria, but the airspace violation is part of the current event. I think it would be appropriate to mention as long as it is fairly short and remains neutral, Not sure that this will remain a long term topic of interest in the historical context of an encyclopedia, but this could also lead to an escalation of the situation which is certainly news worthy. I would say it is in good faith to add it and see where things go in the spirit of full disclosure of known information. If it becomes a non-event, it can be deleted later. More neutral editors is always a good thing and I hope you add to the article Lipsquid (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

what about "those who harbor terrorists" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.65.242 (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the issue is extremely important. Violations (real or alleged ones) of Turkish air-space resulted in the first Russian (Soviet) war plane shot down by NATO country air-forces since the Korean war. It is something exceptional and very dangerous. It could lead to full scale war between Russia and Turkey and as a result between Russia and NATO with nuclear WW3 as an outcome. Thus special attention should be applied to any claims in this context. Unsourced claims that expose one of sides in the negative light are unacceptable. Alas the current version of the article contains an unsourced claim that after downing of Russian Su-24 - quote: "The incident followed over month-long tensions over alleged repeated violations of Turkish airspace by Russian military jets — over nine times in October" There were two claims made by Turkey about violations of its airspace 3 and 4 October. Russia recognized the first one and denied the second. There was no even one claim by Turkey that Russian manned aircraft violated Turkish airspace after 4 October until 24 November when Russian Su-24 was shot down. So I propose to change mentioned phrase for "The incident followed over month-long tensions over alleged violations of Turkish airspace by Russian military jets — at least two times in October" Those who insist on 9 violations are welcomed to come with primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergey poleshchuk (talk • contribs) 13:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Referencing to RT (TV network)

Many references to RT TV have now been included. I think such sources should be generally avoided on this page, and especially to claim something as fact (e.g. these edits) because the network is widely known as a " propaganda outlet for the Russian government". My very best wishes (talk) 13:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Al-Masdar is also a highly dubious source, as just a cursory reading of their recent "news" articles will tell you. It seems to function as a mouthpiece for the Syrian government and its allies. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. However, given that the page is under sanctions, I am not going to really contribute. All the POV and poorly sourced claims are going to stay. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree that the RT is the propaganda of the Russian government, but if avoid them, then we should also be avoided US, Qatari and other propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.15 (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Like what? The U.S. government has no editorial control over American media outlets with the possible exception of Voice of America, which I agree shouldn't be leaned on as a source for contentious subjects like this one. There simply isn't a real apples-to-apples comparison between the tightly controlled Russian media and the laissez-faire Western press. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? US government has no control over their 'Newspapers'?? Ideally perhaps. but don't be so naive to think that any "western" media outlets are unbiased or favoring their point of view. If you want to take crwedit away, do so for both sides equally. for example: Why should I believe what an american reporter says about how a russian reporter twists a fact around, for example where bomb A hit the ground? The russian will try and make it sound like the hit target (regardless of the target was) and the american will say it missed, or hit the wrong thing. Why.... because their in a political dispute over this.

Read the point below — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.109.63.17 (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any fundamental difference between the US and the Russian media, the same imperial approaches to presenting information: manipulation of the facts, double standards and political cliches, the absence of the opposite view - what clearly noticeable for european viewe. Perhaps a little different methods of influence, in one case a state corporation, another - big business, but the essence is the same - to promote the interests of their own political clans. Though of course there're really independent media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.15 (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion, while interesting, isn't particularly material to Wikipedia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

As well as yours. Although in the articles of censorship in the United States (Russian Federation) You can find reliable sources. Or recently Kunduz hospital airstrike - Media reaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.15 (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

For further discussion, I have started a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Syrian_Arab_News_Agency about this apparent censorship attack on Russian, Syrian, Iranian, Iraqi news agencies as reliable sources such as on this page against RT and Sputnik. Guru Noel (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

RT seems to be a reliable source from the discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Syrian_Arab_News_Agency Lipsquid (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That is a grotesque distortion of the discussion going on there. As the editors there observe, these media outlets are not editorially independent and have a well-documented pattern of use by totalitarian governments to spread disinformation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is a distortion at all and most media outlets are biased towards their home countries, I am not sure why anyone would think they would act differently. Editors choosing which state-supported media outlets are reliable would be dangerous and very non-neutral situation. Maybe we need more clarification if people are going to continue to delete RT sourced material. I thought we provide sources with all available credible views and let the reader decide... Lipsquid (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Not when certain outlets have demonstrated a pattern of providing false or misleading information on behalf of the government that controls them. Please don't claim other people are saying what you want them to say when they're clearly not. It's disrespectful to them and it's dishonest. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Again you are introducing opinions as to who is a reliable source and who is not, which is dangerous. The conversation on the RS board speaks for itself. "A state-run news agency will generally be treated by Wikipedia the same as the government's official spokesperson, regardless of the topic being covered." Lipsquid (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That is not the same as a state-run news agency being considered a reliable source. It can be a source for reporting a government's viewpoint, where notable, but the context must make it clear where the claims are coming from and due weight must be considered. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we are saying the same thing. People should attribute SANA or RT statements to their organization, but the associated statements should not be reverted or deleted by other editors as long as the attributions are clear. WP:NEWSORG Lipsquid (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

How is Al-Masdar "highly dubious"? It seems that any Syrian government leaning news is immediately shut down just because it doesn't follow the common "Assad must go" bias. Al-Masdar doesn't call the rebels "terrorists", and neither is Al-Masdar tightly controlled by the Syrian government. In the so called "laissez-faire Western press", we hardly see a distinction in the "moderate non-ISIS groups", whereas in Al-Masdar they tell you directly that (besides ISIS) Russia is bombing the Islamist Ahrar ash-Sham, Al-Qaeda's Al-Nusra Front, and their partners in the FSA. SkoraPobeda (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Read any of Al-Masdar's coverage of Israel/Palestine or the conflict in Yemen and it is immediately clear that the agency is strongly biased. Additionally, I have doubts as to its notability; it has no Wikipedia article and doesn't even provide so much as the country where it is based in the information on its website. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The website is the English version of Al-Masdar.net, which is a part of the non-partisan American organization "The Israel Project". [11] [12] Give me a good example of how strong their bias is instead of just saying that they are strongly biased. SkoraPobeda (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

RT is a Russian state-funded propaganda organ of the Kremlin.[13][14][15][16]. Watch this video at Al Jazeera. — Ríco 22:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is a a Qatari government-run company and has a member of the royal house as its Chairman, and Wikipedia accepts that, too. Nuke (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Because it widely known as a propaganda outlet for the British government/state, when is Wikipedia going to ban the BBC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.103.25 (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not prohibit propaganda organizations such as Al Jazeera, RT, Voice of America, Voice of Russia, Sputnik News, etc. In fact, here's the policy:

"However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." RT is a fine source. Nuke (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Mi-35M attack helicopters

There is video proof of several Mi-35M attack helicopters at the Shayrat airbase in eastern Homs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r1pbBASwgg

2620:101:F000:700:C5F6:8B9A:66A0:8B68 (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Msta-B howitzers

There is video proof of Msta-B howitzers in Latakia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6ZITE2-lIY

2620:101:F000:700:C5F6:8B9A:66A0:8B68 (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Very long?

The

template was added by Lihaas (talk) at 00:03, on 23 February 2016 (i. e., today). [17] The question of whether this article is or isn´t too long and how to make it shorter (if possible) is to be dealt here on the talk page. Regards,--89.173.227.64 (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Russian Air supply allied military caught up in a blockade

to Axion, with all due respect, I suggest you learn a little logic (ignoratio elenchi * 1), as well as to get acquainted with the concept of syncretic thinking. The section where the contested text called "Operations by Russian military forses", but it is definitely not "military intervention" * 1, respectively will rightly tell you about all aspects of the Russian armed forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macaque123 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

removal of sourced info

I'm sorry but why is this being removed? It's well sourced material and I can't make heads or tails of the edit summary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It does seem kind of biased. Saying people who fight against ISIS/Daesh/ISIL, who don't seem to have even the most minimal interest in the Geneva Conventions, is guilty of war crimes is pretty rich. The whole thing is a quagmire and it is similar to accusing Bush or Cheney war crimes in Iraq or saying the Medicine sans Frontiers hospital strike in Afghanistan is a war crime. It is more hyperbole than substance even if it is from Bloomberg. I am not really taking a side, but I can certainly see why someone would remove it. Lipsquid (talk) 01:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not just Bloomberg: [18], [19], [20], [21].Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

How to determine the number of images in the article and avoid tautologies.

Mr. Axxxion, one of the editors of this article, believes that one of his personal opinion may be sufficient grounds, that would remove the result of work of another person. The position of ignoring the opinion of another person called solipsism, which is especially peculiar adherents of the Islamic State, which destroy all do not agree with their dogmatic thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macaque123 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition

If there is really a Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition (as opposed to just some cooperation) it is best presented within the context of Russian's military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Legacypac (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

* Oppose - As per the reasons stated in the numerous previous AfDs and merge proposals made by OP. LavaBaron (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Then if it is best "presented within the context of Russian's military intervention in the Syrian Civil War" it has to be named "Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition". Mhhossein (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• COMMENT - As I have noted prior, I fail to see any valid raison d'être for "Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition" as a separate article: all the salient information therein is covered in "Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War". The topic is contrived, at least obviously far-fetched. And the way its lede reads now makes its validity yet more tenuous: "a joint military, security and intelligence-sharing cooperation". What is that claim based on? All we know, is 2 official reports that an "iformation centre" was set up in Baghdad. A kind of cooperation between Russia, Syria and Iran obviously does exist, but we have no hard info on this: no formal treaties, agreements, or communiques made public thus far.Axxxion (talk) 16:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support: This article and its title have WP:POVFORK and WP:OR written all over them. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The two articles are about different topics. DylanLacey (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom and Kudzu1. EkoGraf (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support merge - doesn't seem like a coalition of equals. More like Russian-led effort.GreyShark (dibra) 21:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The articles discuss two different topics. While related, they are too different to be merged. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Scopes of two articles are different from each other. One is more about Russian involvement in the War; other is more about coalition of four nation-states. Merger would complicate things more and more. The coalition article might need some expansion or something. George Ho (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - The new alliance means a major shift in international relations with influences for Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Greater Middle East. It also means a major turnaround in Russian-Iranian relations - they have never been an ally since one hundred years. This alliance deserves a stand-alone article. Every NATO-Coalition of the Willing has one, too. Derim Hunt (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - RSII (or plus Hezbollah or Lebanon or whatever) is essentially a belligerent faction in the civil wars in Syria and Iraq. Do not merge it into an article on the Russian intervention; link to the article in the lead and merge the section on Iranian collaboration in this article into the RSII article, instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWizard (talk • contribs) 02:19, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose This is simply not a Russia–Syria–Iran–Iraq coalition. The collaboration between these countries indeed exists, but it should be simply described on the page with current title. My very best wishes (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

"criticism" section

Re: this edit. First, the sources talk about BOTH "war crimes" and "attacks on civilians" - hence, the section's title should reflect that. Second, the new section heading "Reports related casualties among civilians." (sic) is ungrammatical. Third this is pure original research and editorializing ("when one considers...". It's also unreadable (just like the two edit summaries).

So I'm restoring previous version of this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I can't even understand these edit summaries [22]. I mean I get the gist, "your edits suck, my edits are of critical thinking" but there's no actual argument in there. So let me explain it again. First, the sources talk about not just attacks on civilians but also possible war crimes. Amnesty International is explicit about this. Then the section heading "Reports related of casualties among civilians" is just bad grammar. I also see no reason try and hide this section at the end of the article. Del Ponte's statement has nothing to do with the subject of the section (and it's being taken out of context too). And in regard to this edit [23], those are not reliable sources and the translation is pretty bad. Additionally, it's some pretty obvious POV pushing by insinuation.

Also the user is not using talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, here are changes made by this contributor, and they are terrible. Factual materials about the war became hidden and misrepresented as some kind of a political debate. "Some media and activists have reported that ...". This is poor writing. "Russian Defense Ministry Igor Konashenkov said in response to criticism". No, that was not "criticism". "I think the Russian intervention is a good thing". That is a debate which should not be included. My very best wishes (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Same thing, inserted by a presumably different user. I fixed it again [24]. However, I made a partly different version and kept RT (TV network) as a source. I think it is OK to source claims by Russian officials, as long as text merely presents them as claims, rather than the "truth". My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that phrasing is fine although I do think a different source should be found. I also missed that first paragraph which you removed which is pretty much straight up original research and POV editorializing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to replace sources, or rephrase. Obviously, this is not a reputable news source, although you should probably look at this. People used RT TV a lot, possibly for less contentious subjects. My very best wishes (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

withdrawal section

Almost none of the material in this section's last paragraph is actually in the sources. The two sources are this and this.

• The first source does NOT actually say anything about any "Western analysts"
• It does NOT credit the capture of Damascus suburbs to Russian intervention but rather "Iranian senior officers and skilled Hezbollah fighters"
• It does NOT say that the Russian intervention "forced the rebels to seek the cessation of hostilities". This appears to be pulled out of thin air, with a citation tacked on at the end to make it look legitimate. It's not.
• It does NOT say that the Russian intervention "enabled Assad to demand a settlement on his own terms". What it does say is that "Assad's strategic goal" is "to either secure a military solution or force the opposition to accept a settlement on his own terms." That's "goal" as in "aim" as in "has not happened yet" (and source does not connect it to the Russian intervention)
• The second source says NOTHING about this intervention "restor(ing) Russia as a major international player capable of exerting its influence far from its borders". This is pure original research by a Wikipedia user with a citation tacked on the end to make it look legitimate. It's not. It's a straight up misrepresentation of a source.
• The second sources says NOTHING about this intervention "forc(ing) the United States to reckon with Moscow's interests". Again, this is some OR crap somebody made up - it's not in the source at all - and tried to make it look legitimate by tacking an irrelevant inline citation at the end.

Please stop misrepresenting sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Checked The cited source, which is an article from BBC World Service, describes the author of this statement as a "Middle East analyst". If you follow the authorlink, which is provided in the citation, you will also find that he is is a Lebanese-American academic as well as the Professor of Middle East Politics and International Relations at the London School of Economics and Political Science, etc. Daniel (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Checked Read the previous paragraph: "After six months of intensive and concentrated Russian air strikes on pro-US rebels...". "Iranian senior officers and skilled Hezbollah fighters" were able to capture the Damascus suburbs (and other territories) only because of the Russian previous Russian air strikes. Daniel (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

N NOT checked. First, you can't really "check" your own text and sources since you're the one who misrepresented them in the first place. Second, the thing is that the source DOES NOT talk about any "Western analysts". It's just one guy whom YOU've decided to call a "Western analyst".

N NOT checked. Yeah but that's the PREVIOUS paragraph. The paragraph which is relevant to the sentence you're adding is talking about Iranians and Hezbollah not Russians, as I've already pointed out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Checked I'm afraid you forgot about assume good faith (WP:GF). Here is an exact quotation from this article, when it was added: "Through its intervention in Syria, Putin has restored Russia's status as a major international player capable of exerting its influence far from its borders, and forced the United States to reckon with Moscow's interests." Since I added this quotation to Wikipedia, the original text in the Reuters article has changed, but you still can find it on the other link from Reuters site: link. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not the source you used in the article. And if they changed their text, then it behooves you to change text in the article to reflect that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

 Comment.Truly speaking, I'm very disappointed by your blatant accusations that I "made up" "crap" "and tried to make it look legitimate by tacking an irrelevant inline citation at the end." After this, I find it very difficult to try to communicate with you. Sorry. Daniel (talk) 00:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Alright, my apologies - but then the text should've been updated to reflect the source. However, we now have another problem which is that you copy/pasted material from a copyrighted source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

And it gets worse - it appears that in response to my edits which pointed out that none of this info was actually in the sources, another editor yet a third source [25]. The problem though is that, in addition to the source being a conspiracy-theory laden opinion piece, it DOES NOT say that "Russia's intervention has achieved its main goals: it consolidated President Assad's position, enabled his forces to re-take key pieces of strategic territory and ensured that Assad remains a factor in any future Syrian settlement"

Will you guys please stop misrepresenting sources, or at least not be so blatant about it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2016

In the beginning of the paragraph, "month" is repeated twice, please fix!! Thank you 83.85.109.54 (talk) 15:55, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Mi-28N and Ka-52 deployed at the Latakia base

http://www.janes.com/article/58863/russian-mi-28n-ka-52-attack-helicopters-spotted-in-syria

45.58.94.53 (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)