Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Israel in the infobox

Foreign policy has confirmed that Israel provided military support to at least 12 rebel groups:

Israel secretly armed and funded at least 12 rebel groups in southern Syria that helped prevent Iran-backed fighters and militants of the Islamic State from taking up positions near the Israeli border in recent years, according to more than two dozen commanders and rank-and-file members of these groups.

The military transfers, which ended in July of this year, included assault rifles, machine guns, mortar launchers and transport vehicles. Israeli security agencies delivered the weapons through three gates connecting the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights to Syria—the same crossings Israel used to deliver humanitarian aid to residents of southern Syria suffering from years of civil war.

Israel also provided salaries to rebel fighters, paying each one about $75 a month, and supplied additional money the groups used to buy arms on the Syrian black market, according to the rebels and local journalists. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/09/06/in-secret-program-israel-armed-and-funded-rebel-groups-in-southern-syria/

This is another article of mounting evidence that Israel supported the rebels, it should be added to the infobox of belligerents as supporter of the FSA. Sgisright (talk) 00:03, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't matter at this point, whatever amount of proof turns up, we'll always have a slew of editors claiming that as long as Netanyahu denies Israel is helping the rebels, it didn't happen. Or repeating the absurd claim that Israel's ongoing attacks on the Syrian army and their allies in Syria are not part of the Syrian war. FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post reported the same news two days ago, but the article was retracted and the link now dead. However, the article is currenctly archived at [1]. According to RT it was pulled on request by the IDF [2]. - 151.8.36.3 (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Now on Haaretz too: Israel discreetly funded and armed at least 12 rebel groups in southern Syria -84.222.253.81 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Your right, it should be added to the infobox Underneaththesun (talk) 05:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Member of the Knesset lambasts the Foreign Minister because Israel finances and supports jihadist groups in Syria: article from the Times of Israel. - 151.8.36.3 (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Israel just bombed the beep out of Syria, and during their attacks Russian plane was shot down due to friendly fire...? Do we need Israel to drop a nuke on Damascus to add them to the infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.217.23.98 (talk) 11:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a big difference between support to a certain side in the Syrian War and between Israeli confrontation with Iran in the Middle East. The issue in this discussion is Israeli support to FSA.GreyShark (dibra) 21:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - the displayed single source by Foreign Policy (used by other presented sources as original) claims Israeli support to Fursan al-Julan - which is not a part of the FSA or related with it. Using this source to add Israel to infobox as supporter of FSA, who denied all ties with Israel, is against Wikipedia policies per WP:SYNTH. Furthermore, the support to certain factions in Quneitra is acknowledged by Israeli as humanitarian aid; claiming "Israel supported rebels with 5000$" is ridiculous and even if it was redirected by rebels for weapons it is truly undue weight compared with billions of Dollars put into this war by other countries like Iran, US, Russia, Saudia etc. There should be something better than a single journalist claim this year (who is this E. Tsurkov by the way?) or another article one year ago by Independent [3]. I don't see anything substantially relevant here - some Syrian rebel commanders of small sideline groups (mainly Fursan al-Julan) claim in discrete interviews that they used Israeli money to buy weapons. Not buying it - give something better, like this academic review [4] or this one Israel's imagined role in the Syrian Civil War.GreyShark (dibra) 21:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The infobox shows supporters of the "Syrian opposition" not the Free Syrian Army, and the groups that the sources claim were supported by the Israeli government are considered rebel group because they are opposed to the Syrian regime, You might be right about the reason why Israel supports these groups but the fact of the mater is that they are fighting the Syrian government and should be considered opposition.Underneaththesun (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, instead of putting Israel as supporter of the Opposition (which is very problematic as mentioned before), an argument of putting Israel as a standalone belligerent can have a better chance to stand up to Wikipedia guidelines. Israelis recently did admit in making 200 air strikes against Iran and Hezbollah on Syrian territories during the war - though it is still marginal compares with other actors in the war (Syrian Air Force with nearly 100,000 strikes, US with 16,000 strikes, Russia with over 20,000 strikes, Turkey with several thousand strikes), we can surely discuss this.GreyShark (dibra) 11:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I would support adding Israel as a standalone belligerent. But by that I mean in the opposition column and separated by a four-dash line. A parenthesized explanation along the lines of "primarily against Iran and its proxies" could also work. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page for Fursan al-Joulan states that it is a faction of the Free Syrian Army, but if you have a source to contradict this please provide it. Given this information, I think the best thing to do would be to add Fursan al-Joulan to the infobox under "Syrian opposition" and then list Israel as a supporter of Fursan al-Joulan by itself and not of the entire Free Syrian Army. Simply mentioning that support was given by another country doesn't necessarily reflect that the amount of support was large or small, it simply states that there was support. Also, your link to the Rubin center comes up with an error, is there another way to view it? Underneaththesun (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

UNDUE as Fursan al-Joulan is/was a minuscule local group. Icewhiz (talk) 08:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source, and there are no sources i've seen on that page to link FJ with FSA. Moreover, half of the sources look like blog entries and should be removed. In any case, Israelis admitted of providing humanitarian assistance to Fursan, not anything related with ammunition. Finally, Fursan al-Julan was a 300 members militia... it is not notable to be mentioned in the infobox.GreyShark (dibra) 11:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

By the way, Jordan has long provided military support to rebels in al-Tanaf area [5], but it is not mentioned as supporter in the infobox. I guess the discussion on inclusion of Israel should first touch the issue of Jordan which was much more notable as Syrian rebels were even officially trained in Jordan by US in 2014.GreyShark (dibra) 11:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Did Jordan carry out strikes on government or Iranian/Hezbollah targets? I actually believe that only countries that have been involved militarily against the government (either independently or in support of the opposition) should be included in the box. And that means removing Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. This should be standard practice whenever using this template throughout Wikipedia. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Which of the existing five governments in Syria do you mean?GreyShark (dibra) 14:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Any of the non-ISIL ones? I assume that's what you're getting at. And in that case you're probably the first person that I've ever seen refer to ISIL as such. Not even the Syrian Interim Government is acting like a functional government. Only the SAR and DFNS are. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Fitz, please do not engage in WP:SYNTH and don't put statements into my mouth. ISIL government is a pure invention of yours. Currently, there are five governments operating within Syrian territories - the Ba'athist Council of Ministers (Syria), DFNS' Executive Council, Oppositional Syrian Interim Government which works together with the Turkish Military governance in Turkish Security Belt an Syrian Salvation Government. Perhaps the Turkish Military governance of the Security Belt is not really Syrian, so 4 Syrian governments and 5 governments total within Syrian territories.GreyShark (dibra) 07:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Then don't pretend like you didn't know which "government" I was referring to, which is also the one that sources overwhelmingly refer to as "Syrian government" while referring to the other "governments" you mentioned by the names of their respective military wings (and for a good reason). And, while that's not even the point, did Jordan (which is already in the infobox) carry out strikes on either of those? The only faction that was notably targeted by the Jordanians was ISIL, which is why I mentioned them. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

While at present the weight of the Baathist government is large, previously this was not the case - e.g. in 2014 there were a number of competing governments in Syria with fairly equal weight, and the Baathist government's position was arguable not the strongest of the bunch - so a criteria based on the target being the Baath led government is clearly irrelevant. We should weigh whether the involvement of parties has been significant and whether that involvement was engaged to change the outcome of the Syrian war (to support one Syrian faction over another) as opposed to activities that has little effect on the civil war but were part of a different conflict. Icewhiz (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Deciding whose involvement is more "significant" than the other is a good way to go, but it also (unavoidably) tends to be arbitrary and OR-ish, unless we have reliable sources explicitly making such distinctions between the various factions involved. I tried doing something similar a while ago (see here) and managed to make the infobox look like this instead of this. But what do you mean exactly by "different conflict"? It is not uncommon for modern civil wars to involve different regional rivalries. A close example is Lebanon's civil war, which involved the Arab-Israeli conflict (and its sub-conflicts), the early phase of the Iran-Israel proxy conflict, and at some points the rivalry between Ba'athist Syria and Ba'athist Iraq, and even the struggle between Syria and Revolutionary Iran for influence among Lebanon's Shiites. The same can be said about the Syrian civil war. I have no strong opinion about Israel's inclusion in the infobox, but excluding it because it is supposedly involved in a "different conflict" is not a valid argument IMO. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Guys, the question in this discussion is whether Israel supports the rebels, not whether it is fighting Ba'athist Syria. There is no notable Israeli support to the FSA, or other mainstream opposition organizations. The question of whether Israel should be put as supporter of another party in the conflict is a different issue. The last time Israel was discussed users were split in opinion concerning whom Israel supports or not - some claimed the opposition, other claimed al-Qaida, some even ISIL and i have to remind you that opposition sources claimed that Israeli support the Ba'athist rule of al-Assad.GreyShark (dibra) 18:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, when I said earlier that I would support Israel's inclusion, I only had the strikes on government/Hezbollah/Iranian positions in mind. Its support for the rebels should only serve as an indicator to which column it can be added to. What the opposition suggested before about Israeli support (or "preference") for Assad sounds like a primary source to me, unlike what we have here. And, again, I think infoboxes should only include countries that are involved militarily. That means Saudi Arabia and Qatar should be probably kept out of the opposition's column (but that's a discussion for another day, I guess). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 04:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

You see Fitz, that is the problem - many users proposed to include Israel in the infobox, but some (like the initiator of this discussion) asked to put it as supporters of the opposition, others wanted Israel to appear as supporter of al-Qaeda and you and few others suggest it should be put as belligerent within the opposition column. In my opinion, when putting Israel as belligerent it can only be logicial as standalone belligerent in the same column as US. You are welcome to make a poll, but i'm afraid that there would be no consensus once again.GreyShark (dibra) 12:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with whichever column, as long as we have sufficient RS saying that Israel is coordinating with the YPG/SDF and the US-led coalition. It's not up to us to decide what's "logical" and what isn't. This should be determined by the sources and which side they are leaning towards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The link to Rubin center doesn't work indeed, but the article overview can be found here [6], while copy of the original at the author's page [7].GreyShark (dibra) 11:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The US regime has been "reportedly" transfering terrorists to safe place.

I suggest adding this to the article.

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201810071068679412-syria-deir-ez-zor-daesh-terrorists-evacuation

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/07/politics/us-isis-detainees-transfer/index.html SharabSalam (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree - I agree that this is useful information, that should be included even though it might be later censored by activist admins. Santamoly (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Sputnik is a bad source; CNN is OK. The situation is complicated and inadequately summarised by "transferring terrorists to safe place". The SDF are holding hundreds of foreign ISIS detainees and some of them are being sent to their home countries, including Sudan and Lebanon as well as Macedonia, other countries (e.g. UK) refusing to take them, and is considering Iraqi prisons or (where there are already 20,000) and Guantamo for others, although one has been deported back from Iraq to Syria. There's lots of sources on this,[8][9][10][11][12][13][14] but it would be hard to summarise concisely enough for this main article - might be better in the ISIL article &/or ones on the fighting on that front. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Western and Israeli-made weapons were found with ISIS according to Syrian Arab agency news

I suggest adding this to the article. https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201810131068863894-damascus-region-terrorist-weapons-cache-found SharabSalam (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Not a WP:RS. Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Afrin Clashes

Hey everyone. Should we make a new entry in battles for the clashes that occurred yesterday in Afrin between SNA with Turkish support against Tajammu Shuhada al-Sharqiya? Heavy weapons were used, and it's the first example of Turkey using its powers to rope in a rebel group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trivialgalaxy57 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2018

Suggest adding after "Russia blamed Israel for the shooting down of the plane" the phrase "contending they knew Syrian air defenses would preferentially target the Russian plane and used it as cover." The current text makes it sound like Russia's claim is that Israel shot down the plane themselves. 73.223.119.89 (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: I have replaced the sentence with "Russia blamed Israel for the incident". I am not so sure about the second part of the suggestion above and it would probably need some consensus before it can be added to the article . (to me the second part appears controversial) DBigXrayᗙ 14:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox Correction Required

"Territorial changes" section: "As of 31 November 2018". I am convinced that only 30 days in November. 46.34.199.25 (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Foreign funding

According to the in-depth research by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Salafis of the Gulf channeled enormous amounts of material and propaganda support to the opposition from the very beginning. The findings of “Brothers in Alms: Salafi Financiers and the Syrian Insurgency”, should be added to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:E006:A52:7E01:B14D:CD4D:A702:D5C0 (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It also seems ridiculous that ISIL is shown as having no allies or supporters, when the entire Syrian opposition openly supported it and fought alongside it for a very long time, and it was funded by the same wealthy Gulf patrons as the opposition. FunkMonk (talk) 05:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Map update, per the TFSA s total victory in the Afrin Operation.

Hello, everyone. I just wanted to let you all know that Afrin has completely fallen to the TFSA control so, you might waant to update the map on the article to reflect the change properly. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Democratic_Federation_of_Northern_Syria#/media/File:Syrian_Civil_War_map.svg. I believe this is the latest version of the map.

This comment does not appear to be signed and dated... and that link doesn't take me to a map. Anyone know what this is about? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I guess it's about the Turks taking over Afrin. The section would have been long archived if it had a time stamp, but I don't think the bots archive anything without those. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, FunkMonk. Do you think it can be deleted now? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Sections should never be deleted (unless they are vandalism), but now that there are time stamps in this section, it will be automatically archived by the bot. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

ISIL as belligerent

@Jim7049: As long as ISIL is not driven from Syria, it remains a belligerent. Heavy fighting for eastern Deir-ez-Zor took place in 2018, and ISIL is still around. It is strongly disputed how many fighters of the group remain, but almost everyone (with the exception of Trump) agrees that the group is not defeated - therefore, it is still a belligerent in this conflict. By now no longer a major belligerent, but that does not warrant its exclusion from the infobox. One does not have to have tens of thousands of soldiers to be listed as belligerent in a conflict - one just has to be one conflict party in it. Applodion (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Applodion: It does remain a belligerent no one changed that. It is no longer a "main belligerent" which is what the section says according to the sources. If you want you can add something like, insurgency since 2018. Rather than listing it as one of the "Main Beligerent" to a group that doesn't hold territory at all almost and has no fighters to be listed in the same scale as the rest of the 3 fighting groups. Jim7049 (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jim7049: For a group to be listed as belligerent in an infobox, it does not have to a major party of the conflict. ISIL does not have to hold territory or employ large armies to be noteworthy. By adding "(2013-17)", you imply that ISIL was no longer involved in this war at all which is false. Instead, we could add a note about ISIL being rather small and more insurgent-like from 2017. Applodion (talk) 20:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Applodion: No. Going by that logic the civil war will never end because there will always be a small ISIS pocket fighting everywhere. Similar to Iraq with ISIS and Al-Qaeda. ISIS as an army is defeated and needs to be implied significantly. Jim7049 (talk) 20:51, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jim7049: I understand your position, but we should at least keep ISIL as belligerent as long as they hold territory (which they still do). In Iraq, the civil war war considered over when ISIL lost its last signficant (i.e. non-desert/mountain) pocket. Applodion (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Applodion: It's negligible to say ISIS still holds territory. It is definitely not enough to list it as a main belligerent. Jim7049 (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

ISIS still holds territory and at one point held about half of the land in the country. It has clearly been one of the primary belligerents and most powerful forces in the Civil War, and even if it were to lose all of its territory tomorrow, that would not change and it would still be proper to keep it listed as a main belligerent in the infobox. Display name 99 (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Display name 99: Do you even know what we are talking about? It is still listed but a small timeline is added under it showing it stopped being a main belligerent since 2017. Jim7049 (talk) 03:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't seen it before. Now I do. I still think it's terrible idea. For one, I estimate that few people will make the distinction between it no longer being a "main belligerent" and it not existing at all. The article essentially implies that ISIS ceased to exist altogether in 2017. Also, the designation that it was no longer a "main belligerent" in 2018 is absurd. At various points in 2018 before now, ISIS controlled territory in Yarmouk (a neighborhood in the southern part of the Syrian CAPITAL CITY of Damascus), alongside the Golan Heights a little west of Daraa City, and in As-Suwayda and al-Safa, not to mention the territory on the eastern side of the Euphrates, which was considerably larger and covered a significant portion of the Iraqi border. In total, that is greater than five percent of the territory of Syria. This is more than what Tahir al-Sham currently controls. Tahir al-Sham does not however have some tag implying that it stopped being a major belligerent before 2018. May I ask why? In addition, ISIS cells have been waging attacks on a semi-regular basis even without controlling territory. It is clear that ISIS has been an important force in the country after 2017 and that therefore this designation is inappropriate. Display name 99 (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Display name 99: Tahrir al sham has about 30k fighters which about 30 times what ISIS had in late 2017. The territory that you mention is a vast desert with some insurgents. Showing ISIS as a main belligerent makes it seem as an active and major group, which it's not. If you take a look at it that way the estimated 100 groups of rebels should be included same way ISIS is since they have about 1000 fighters and are holding an insurgency. As of now at least, ISIS is no where comparable to the rest of the three sides, which are Regime, Rebels and the Kurds. All of which have a significance and a territory. Therefore an indication of their active time period is needed; which is what the headline says "Main belligerent". Jim7049 (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• The infobox should include groups that have been "main belligerents" at some point in the war, not just currently. Otherwise, we could just nuke the infobox in WW2 or whatever other past war article, since they are not belligerents in those wars today. FunkMonk (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Again, as I said it to Display name 99. We are not discussing removing it from the section. The discussion is about adding a timeline that states ISIS ceased being a main belligerent since 2017. Jim7049 (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

You can just add a range, as in Lebanese civil war. FunkMonk (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

That's what it currently looks like. Jim7049 (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it's arguable as to whether they can still be considered a main belligerent... They are certainly not defeated (and I'm not sure about quoting Fox News as a source, because they tend to echo what Trump says). According to one of the live maps I linked to, here, there is still quite a swathe of land controlled by ISIS, and CNN's "fact page" says a "Defense Department inspector General report put the number of ISIS members in Iraq and Syria as high as 30,000." I don't feel convinced of the necessity to put dates behind their name in this case, yet. They have definitely been main belligerents and surely the situation is still volatile? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, it is probably immature; like the Taliban a few years ago, ISIL is probably just waiting for the US to diminish their presence before becoming they become more active again. FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

ISIL is still a belligerent. They have a territory under their control in Syria. What is the point of writing, that they were active on 2013-2017, while that's untrue? They're still active. Moreover, they're in heavy firegihts with SDF and their leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, as well as his associates, are hiding in town of Al-Susah, which in under control of ISIS militants. Only when every village will be lost by ISIS, then we can talk, that ISIS has been defeated. MarcusTraianus (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@MarcusTraianus: Again, no one says they're not a belligerent, but are they a "Main Belligerent" comparable to the rest of the 3 fighting sides? ISIS holds less than %0.5 percent of the territory with less than a 1000 fighters according to the sources. To list them as the main belligerent with the rest of the 3 fighting sides is misleading. All of which have 50.000+ fighters and hold a territory other than a single village. Jim7049 (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jim7049: Absolutely strange logic. This group has territory, has militants, has entire towns under its control, their leaders sit in these cities. The Syrian Democratic Forces are fighting with these troops, trying to knock them out of villages and towns in Deir ez-Zor now, at the end of 2018. This means for me that the group exists and influences the course of the Civil War in Syria. When the Syrian Democratic Forces take over the last settlements that are under the control of ISIS, then we can talk about the destruction of ISIL as a member of the Civil War in Syria. Then you say that ISIS should be removed from the main participants, because they almost do not keep the territory under their control. But they had previously held significant territory under their control. The page on the Civil War in Syria will exist even after the end of the war, therefore, it will be impossible to submit an article without reflecting ISIS in this war. Imagine if we were writing an article about the Second World War in April 1945. We must suddenly remove Nazi Germany as a significant participant in the war, and also write that they were active in 1939-1944, and after that they lost complete control, therefore, it is not necessary to include 1945 as the year of their activity. But this is absurd. MarcusTraianus (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@MarcusTraianus: Who says their leaders are in the these towns? Do you have a source for that? There are sources saying they have less than a thousand fighters and are holding less than one percent of the territory. You cannot compare it to WW2 since insurgencies like this can go on for decades. 2017 is the year ISIL was militarily defeated. Therefore not a main belligerent since 2017. Jim7049 (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@MarcusTraianus: Also read the rest of the discussion on this. It is not about the removal from the main belligerent part as I'm saying the third time. Discussion is about adding a timeline for 2013-17. Jim7049 (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is decided by consensus, and because we have four people opposed to adding dates and only one supportive, I went ahead and removed them. Display name 99 (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Jim7049, per the policy you cited (WP:Dem), Wikipedia's "primary (though not exclusive) means of decision making and conflict resolution is editing and discussion leading to consensus—not voting (voting is used for certain matters such as electing the Arbitration Committee)." Discussion leading to consensus is exactly what we had. There was no voting. You are knowingly misusing this policy. There is clear consensus that ISIS is still a "main belligerent," and that should therefore be reflected. I believe that you should either self-revert or one of the other editors (MarcusTraianus, Laterthanyouthink, or FunkMonk) should revert you. Display name 99 (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

@Display name 99: No. There is no consensus and the discussion is ongoing, you may not change it without coming to a same decision and approval with at least another user. Which I have not seen yet. The discussion is ongoing and there is no consensus. Jim7049 (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Jim7049, but you seem to be outvoted in this forum. I agree with Display name 99. Give it another day in case of other opinions, else I am happy to revert your change. Let's first see what unfolds after the US pulls out. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Also, to be a bit pedantic, your footnote should read "fewer than", not "less than" a thousand fighters. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

With 4k fighters isis is still a major belligerentShadow4dark (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

That's now 5-1. Consensus is clear. Laterthanyouthink, could you remove the dates now and therefore clearly establish ISIS as a main belligerent? Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks as if Applodion got there first, Display name 99. But I tidied up the refs and footnotes (adding one referring to this discussion). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in map; outdated map

This map currently shows that the SDF has withdrawn from al-Arimah and the surrounding area. Per Syrian Civil War Map.com, initial reports that this took place are false. I have been following this closely and have not seen any reliable sources stating that the SDF has departed. al-Arimah and the surrounding countryside is under joint SAA/SDF occupation, and the map should be changed to reflect this. Display name 99 (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Outdated map
The map used here is severely outdated, at least for the northern parts of Syria. For example, there is no more presence of SDF in Tel Rifaat and all the areas to the east of Arima. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. The more detailed map is mainly correct except for the problem I mentioned above, but the main map still needs to be updated. A new color should also be added to the main map to reflect areas jointly occupied by the SAA and SDF, such as the countryside around Tel Rifaat and the areas west and north of Manbij. Display name 99 (talk) 02:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

(Hope you don't mind but I collapsed the two sub-sections concerning the map as they seem to refer to the same topic.) I have also thought this when editing the article recently, but I would imagine that it would be nigh on impossible to keep the static map updated to reflect the situation accurately on a daily basis. Although the link underneath says that it's pointing to a live, interactive map, as far as I can see, it's a static one, and says "This page was last edited on August 13, 2018". It seems to me that there are two distinct problems here.This morning when I read this BBC article I went looking for the source of its map (dated 17 December), but found that it came from a commercial organisation which sells their data. Upon further searching I found two live maps which appear to be reliable and free to use: The Carter Centre one and Liveuamap (mentioned in this Huffpost article and others). I am wondering if (a) someone who has better knowledge than I can update the static map, and (b) whether a link to one or both of the above live maps should be included as well? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:09, 29 December 2018 (UTC) P.S. I have just modified the text under the map in the template infobox and added links to those live maps. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but this problem extends well beyond simply keeping the map updated. It hasn't been so since August, which is a shame, but this is not an issue of updates but accuracy. The SDF withdrew from Tell Rifaat in March; why was not this reflected? In the more detailed map, why is the SDF shown to have withdrawn from al-Arimah and the surrounding countryside when no such thing has yet taken place? These problems need to be corrected as soon as possible. Display name 99 (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, Display name 99, I would imagine that it requires someone to have access to a series of static maps are updated on a near-daily basis, plus the will, ability and time to keep replacing that map. At the moment it is clear that it's a snapshot of the situation as at August. If you can find a current static map to add, please feel free to do so. I couldn't find one (apart from the commercially produced one mentioned above). I also suggest that you look at the links from the Timeline article for more detailed info and you can update anything you know there too. I don't think that this article can serve as more than an overview and at the moment it is somewhat failing in that function because of its length (see my comments under a different heading above) - but aiming to keep everything current in a still volatile situation is always going to be a challenge. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you largely missed the point of my comments. I said that it's not just about being current but being accurate. Somebody did update the more detailed map recently regarding troop positionings in and around al-Arimah. That person did so inaccurately. That's not a matter of not being up to date. It's simply being wrong. Also, as I said, the person who performed the update on the main template map in August failed to account for a change that happened IN MARCH, a total of FIVE MONTHS earlier. My problem is not that the maps aren't being updated. It's that whoever is doing the updates is doing them incorrectly, failing to account for things which have happened and making changes based on things which never did happen. I'm afraid I don't have the technical abilities to get this right, but I do desire that the people who monitor and adjust the maps do so correctly. Display name 99 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with Display name 99. The map stopped being updated for a weird reason, when it was being updated every time SDF were occupying new territory. It seems some users are just happy with the peak territories occupied by SDF, and did not want to show their retreats. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks عمرو بن كلثوم, but that's not entirely right. The concise map shows that the SDF retreated from the al-Arimah region, which it never did. Basically, the main map fails to account for the SDF retreat from Tell Rifaat, which happened about 9 months ago, while the more concise map reflects an SDF retreat which never happened at all. It isn't about being biased for or against the SDF or any other belligerent. It's just wrong. Display name 99 (talk) 01:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see, sorry, Display name 99 (and Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم), I misunderstood. I have not been following every step of the war and do not have such detailed knowledge. If that map is incorrect even for August, perhaps it should be removed altogether and the infobox just link to the live maps? It would be nice to be able to use that IHS Markit map used by the BBC, but I doubt that they would allow free use on Wikipedia, being a commercial concern. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I see that someone has updated the map label to January 2019 - and having investigated further, see that the map is here and was created by Ermanarich using Lua, so perhaps they can comment? Has the map has also been updated recently? I would imagine that it took a lot of work, and it's a fabulous resource, but only if it's kept current, or is correctly dated at each update. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Iraq as a belligerent

@Jim7049: Look at the source I added ([15]). I never said there were Iraqi troops in Syria, and neither is that a criteria when Iraq has carried out airstrikes aplenty. Iraq is taking part in the fight against ISIS in Deir ez-Zor, hence it is a belligerent in the Syrian Civil War (albeit in a limited role, and only against ISIS). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Only countries with troops fighting are listed among the belligerent. Rest is mentioned in support. Jim7049 (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

A belligerent power is one that is actively engaged in hostilities in an armed conflict, as the Iraqi airforce is now regularly participating in combat via airstrikes in Syria, Iraq is now a belligerent power in the Syrian Civil War albeit a minor one.XavierGreen (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

No, there is an order to this and you cannot add the thousands of sides that are doing airstrike in support of one against a belligerent. So far only countries with active troops are listed among the belligerents. Which are Russia and Iran with troops fighting with Gov, and Turkey with troops fighting with Rebels. If you wanna change this then open a discussion. Jim7049 (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: The criteria is combat involvement, which does not necessarily mean ground troops. Most countries that took part in the US-led intervention did not send ground troops to fight. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: yes I know, that's why they are mentioned in support section just like Iraq is mentioned. Jim7049 (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: They are not mentioned under "support". There's a dividing line between "Support" and the CJTF–OIR. "Supporters" are placed in collapsible lists. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: No, it is not comparable to support that Iran and Russia gives. Neither comparable to Turkish support to the rebels. Jim7049 (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: I never said it was. The criteria for being considered a belligerent is involvement in combat, not the deployment of ground troops. If we followed your criteria, not a single NATO country would be a belligerent in the Kosovo War. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: I don't care about the Kosovo War, this is the Syrian Civil War, and even the US who has advisory troops in Syria is not listed among the SDF since they are not fighting on the front lines, so Iraq is a no-no. Jim7049 (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: What exactly are you talking about? The US is listed as a belligerent in the infobox. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Yes, it is listed in support section. Jim7049 (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: It is listed as a supporter, but it is also listed under the CJTF–OIR, and hence as a belligerent. Presumably this list was made collapsible because quite a few countries are involved in the coalition. So again: If other countries that are exclusively involved through airstrikes are included, why should we not include Iraq? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: CJTF-OIR is separate from the SDF support. And Iraqi strikes against ISIS doesn't mean anything, Israel has stroke Assad in protection of rebels. Russia and US both used airstrikes to support Euphrates Shield rebels etc. So just quit while you're at it. Jim7049 (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: You confuse me. Are you telling me that the CJTF-OIR is not listed as a belligerent in the infobox? Because that is simply not true. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Ok I'll explain this way, just because Iraq is striking ISIS in Syria doesn't mean it's supporting Assad. US is striking ISIS in Syria as well without supporting or fighting for Assad. Jim7049 (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: The war against ISIS in Syria is part of the Syrian Civil War. How about we include a footnote saying that Iraq is fighting ISIS with the approval of the Syrian government, but is not fighting the rebels? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: No, as long as you place Iraq under Gov side it shows Iraq being a part of it. Also Iraq is a part of CJTF-OIR as well. So you don't need to put it two times to show them striking ISIS. Jim7049 (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: Unlike the CJTF-OIR, Iraq is acting in Syria with Assad's blessings. Therefore it makes more sense to place it in the same column as the Syrian government. By all means, if you have sources that say that Iraq is involved as part of the CJTF-OIR, please do share them. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Never mind I was wrong about Iraq being a member of CJTF-OIR, nevertheless you cannot show it as fighting alongside the Syrian Gov just because you have a source saying they are allowed to strike ISIS. Jim7049 (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: Iraq has already conducted airstrikes. If I provide sources that prove that, are you fine with me reverting the removal of Iraq from the infobox? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: No. Jim7049 (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: What exactly is your criteria for inclusion? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: An actual evidence that shows Iraq fighting alongside Syrian Gov. Jim7049 (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: It is fighting alongside the Syrian government - against ISIS, in Deir ez-Zor. [16] [17] Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Nothing suggests this is fighting alongside the Syrian Government, I hope you're not wasting my time by repeating this. Coalition has stroke ISIS in Syria coincidentally helping the Syrian Government as well. Jim7049 (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: It fights with the blessings of the Syrian government, hence alongside it - or behalf of it, or however you'd like to formulate it. What more do you need? I really don't understand your objection here. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Sorry bud, you don't have my consent. There is no evidence that Iraq is fighting "Alongside" or "Together with" Syrian Government. If you find a source that claims it, feel free to change it. Iraq has stroke ISIS in Syria even before the Syrian permission as well. Jim7049 (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

You have an odd definition of "together with". Iraq is acting in Syria on behalf of the Assad government, hence "together with" it. What more do you need? Do their armed forces have to participate in the same battle? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: I'm done with this argument, if you wanna keep arguing go talk with other users. Jim7049 (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

If you are done with the argument, does that mean you won't revert if I reinsert Iraq in the infobox? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: If you still wanna revert it I will start an RfC. Which means other users will comment on what they think. Jim7049 (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: I'd actually appreciate it if you did that, since you said you're done with this discussion. Third party input could be useful. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Abbreviating or splitting the article

As per the template note at the top of the page, this article is still rather long and unwieldy. I have had a go at improving and abbreviating the flow of the "Timeline" section, but without a HUGE amount of work, it's hard to assess whether what is there represents the "highlights". There's also the other Timeline of the Syrian Civil War article, which has hundreds of links and subsections - which I did consult a bit in my review, but again, without a huge input of work and time, it's not possible to ensure that both are in sync. I am wondering if it's worth moving the timeline in this article into a new one entitled "Chronological narrative/summary/[something else?] of the Syrian Civil War", just to reduce the size of this one? It's not ideal because of the overlap with the Timeline... Does anyone have any other suggestions about this? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

After looking more carefully at the Timeline article, I've come to the conclusion that the best solution may be to integrate the Timeline section here into that one, and have written on the Timeline article talk page about it. Thought I may as well post here for opinions as well. I think it will be easier since I edited this article to match the time spans in the headings in the other one, up until 2016 (where the other one tails off anyway). It's just a matter of copying over relevant material and citations from here to the other one, under each sub-heading. I will press on with doing this when I find time, if nobody objects or suggests an alternative. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I've started cross-checking each subsection of the Timeline in both articles and made a small change to the first section on the other page. I've also added "Copied" templates to both talk pages, but as this will take some time, I couldn't think of a good way to indicate this apart from making a note underneath this box. Anyone with greater or better editing skills, please improve on this if you can. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Update. I found that most of the text in each sub-section was identical or nearly identical in both articles (up until the Raqqa Offensive in 2016 - where the Timeline article ended), but I checked each section line by line before copying over. Apart from some minor tidying and updating or improving citations, I haven't changed anything. I'm not sure at what point all of the text was copied over from one article to another, or where it started life, but anyway the histories of both pages should reveal all. I have provided an attribution note at the top of this talk and on some of my edits. I'll be working on removing the section headings in this article and reviewing the new info in the Timeline article next. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

This move is now complete. I have left a bolded list (not sub-headings, so they don't appear in the ToC) in the main SCW article, with links to main articles and the relevant section in the Timeline article.Laterthanyouthink (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This page is incomplete

This is from https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Refugees_of_Iraq:

"Numbering over 1.2 million, Iraqi refugees comprise a large portion of Syria's population of 18 million.[20] This has caused an increase in the cost of living and caused a strain on infrastructure.[1][20] Sources like oil, heat, water and electricity were said to be becoming more scarce as demand had gone up.[23] Syrian's deputy foreign minister has stated that the price of food has increased by 30%, property prices by 40%, and rentals by 150%.[1][20] Water consumption rose by 21%, costing the Syrian government about 6.8 million US dollars in 2006.[20] The Iraqi population also strained the labor market: Syrian unemployment was 18% in 2006.[20] Refugees put a strain on health services (which are free in Syria), and Syria experienced public school overcrowding.[20] In 2005 and 2006, Syria used $162 million to offer aid to Iraqi refugees in the country.[20]"

This whole page pretends that the Iraqi War was not the cause of the Syrian Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 22:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Belligerents (again...)

Countries that are part of the Combined Joint Task Force – Operation Inherent Resolve are listed under said collapsible list. There's no reason for double mentions. While coalition countries have occasionally clashed with the Syrian government, their main focus has been to fight ISIS alongside the SDF. It would take ages to find the old discussions, but I am pretty sure I remember this being discussed ages ago. I admit the situation is far more complicated than what can be squeezed into an infobox, but we can only do our best to illustrate the political/military environment as accurately as possible. There are 4/5 main sides, and foreign actors should be mentioned under the belligerent they have the closest cooperation with. It's not perfect, but it's what we have got. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

US has striked regime forces several times to protect al-Tanf rebels (they have troops among them as well). UK and France striked regime following the chemical attack against rebels in Douma. Jim7049 (talk) 23:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Infoboxes are oftentimes perverse simplifications, no doubt. Russia conducted joint airstrikes with Turkey against ISIS in Operation Euphrates Shield, the Syrian government has both fought against and fought alongside the SDF, same with the SDF and the rebels who have fought alongside each other against ISIS as well as against each other... There are countless examples of flexible alignments in this conflict, all of which could merit double (or even triple) mentions in the infobox. I think we will save ourselves from hell a lot of headache by sticking to the essentials in the infobox and leave the details for the articles. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

If you wished to stick to essentials you wouldn't have added Iraq among regime. Their involvement is definitely less essential than those of US and UK and France. If you wish to stick to essentials you are free to move Iraq under support section again. Jim7049 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Is this WP:POINT? And you just violated the 1RR... Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

No it's not WP:POINT. It is called making the infobox even. And I have not violated 1RR. There is quite a difference between those reverts. Jim7049 (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The point of that previous discussion was that all belligerents - including Iraq - merit a mention. Where to list them, or whether they should be listed at multiple places, is another discussion entirely. The coalition countries are listed below the SDF because they are closest aligned with said belligerent. Iraq is listed under the Syrian government for the same reason - it is closer aligned to Assad than any other warring sides. Listing countries multiple times adds further complexity to an already complicated infobox. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Before you have placed Iraq, there were only 3 countries mentioned: Turkey, Iran and Russia. All of which provide full support to their sides against rest of the 3 opposites by means of ground and air support. Iraq has only provided air support to the regime and only against ISIS. Now you tell me does this make it complex or essential? Jim7049 (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The coalition countries were mentioned under a collapsible list. It was probably made that way for the sake of the layout, but I'm certainly not opposed to making it not collapsible. Would you support that? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Coalition countries are not mentioned as belligerent on the side of SDF. It is mentioned as a separate entity. Not all countries in the coalition support SDF. Those who do are mentioned under support nevertheless, even though their involvement is much greater than Iraq's. I suggest you move Iraq under support now that this has been explained. Jim7049 (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Iraq is a belligerent. Moving it under "support" would make it not a belligerent, as "support" refers to non-combat involvement (such as arms, intelligence ,etc. - trust me, if it was up to me, we'd only include belligerents in the infobox). I don't know why there is a dash between the SDF and the coalition, and I wouldn't be against removing it. In any case, the coalition countries are all mentioned in the collapsible list. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a dash because not all those countries involved necessarily support the SDF, just like Iraq, which doesn't necessarily support the regime or fight along it. It just strikes one of regimes enemies. Moving it under support would not mean non-combat involvement, in fact in the article it is specifically mentioned: "only add countries providing lethal aid" under support. So do you still insist on not moving Iraq back under support? Jim7049 (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Lethal support means non-combat military support (advisors, weapons, etc.), i.e. countries providing humanitarian aid do not fall under this category. Iraq is more than a "supporter", it is directly involved in the Syrian War by fighting ISIS on Syrian territory. A footnote is already in place to explain that Iraq is only fighting ISIS, just as a footnote explains who Turkey has fought and when. Iraq is certainly a belligerent, even though it's only fighting ISIS. A discussion on where to place the different belligerents in the infobox will probably boil down to a subjective discussion on where it makes more sense to place them. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? "Lethal support means non-combat military support (advisors, weapons, etc.)" So then why is US and France are only mentioned under support but Iraq is mentioned directly as a belligerent. They are providing much greater support to SDF then Iraq is to the Regime. I still urge you to move Iraq under support, only countries with troops on the frontlines should be listed as a belligerent which US is not. Jim7049 (talk) 01:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

They are not only listed under "Supported by", they are listed under the collapsible list in the same column as the SDF. All belligerents should be listed, whether they have troops on the frontline or just carry out airstrikes. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

"all belligerents should be listed" so now you changed the point you made 5 comments ago, where you have said only essentials should be listed. What it sounds to me like is you pushing your personal sides to the infobox without any regard to making it equal. Jim7049 (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Every belligerent state involved in the conflict should be listed. There was a clear consensus from the RFC to include Iraq as a belligerent, you were the only dissenting editor.XavierGreen (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@XavierGreen:Then why shouldn't US be listed as a belligerent since they are doing airstrike in support of al-Tanf rebels since 2017? Jim7049 (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: The US is listed - under the collapsible list. Say if we make it no longer collapsible, like this example? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, the best solution to this is include Iraq under support and only put essential countries next to their sides, which are the big three: Iran, Russia and Turkey. They have 1) troops fighting on the frontlines 2)direct airsupport against all of the opponents. Meanwhile US 1) has no troops on the frontlines with the YPG only advisors. 2) direct airsupport only against ISIS. And Iraq has, 1)No troops No advisors 2)Minor airsupport against ISIS. So let's just take out Iraq to make it clear and bold. Jim7049 (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

You want to remove all belligerents that didn't deploy ground forces? By your standard, NATO was not a belligerent in the Kosovo War. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Once again, this has absolute no relation to the kosovo war, so perhaps answer my initial question rather than talking about something else. "best solution to this is include Iraq under support and only put essential countries next to their sides, which are the big three: Iran, Russia and Turkey. They have 1) troops fighting on the frontlines 2)direct airsupport against all of the opponents. Meanwhile US 1) has no troops on the frontlines with the YPG only advisors. 2) direct airsupport only against ISIS. And Iraq has, 1)No troops No advisors 2)Minor airsupport against ISIS. So let's just take out Iraq to make it clear and bold." Jim7049 (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

For a good century, it has been within the realms of possibility to wage war without deploying ground troops. I'm not suggesting that the involvement of each combatant is of equal significance, but that does not justify omitting to mention all coalition countries based on your criteria. There are countless of examples of wars where some combatants engaged exclusively in aerial warfare (the Kosovo War being one such example, which is why I mentioned it). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The inclusion of all the countries in the coalition is so vast that the vitality of those involved with ground troops are hidden by it. Therefore those in the coalition shouldn't be involved as belligerent in the first hand, right now the collapsible table is doing a good job, so is the support section. The moment you include Iraq in among the big three (Iran Russia Turkey) the involvement of them is almost diminished, and once you include Iraq for air support we have to include all the 20 countries in the coalition as well. Next thing you know infobox loses its point. Therefore best option is to remove Iraq. Jim7049 (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

That's just a general weakness with infoboxes. In the Korean War article, Luxembourg (which deployed 44 soldiers) is mentioned together with South Korea (602,902) and the United States (326,863). Not sure where you get this "big three" thing from. Generally, all combatants are mentioned in infoboxes, regardless of the comparative scope of their combat involvement, and I don't see any reason why we should change that here. Besides, wouldn't that be censorship? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC, Iraq fighting with Syrian regime

User Mikrobølgeovn wishes to put Iraq fighting on behalf of the Syrian Government in the infobox, citing they are allowed to strike ISIS in Syria. There was a discussion above with no conclusion reached. Jim7049 (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support Inclusion of Iraq - Iraq is now a belligerent in the Syrian Civil War, having launched airstrikes there and recieving permission from the Syrian government to continue to launch air strikes there. Belligerency does not require ground troops, indeed many of the coalition countries listed such as Jordan, Denmark, Morocco, and Qatar have not deployed ground troops to Syria yet they are acknowledged in the infobox as being belligerents in the conflict under the CJTIF-OIR dropdown box.XavierGreen (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

What is to confirm that Iraq is a belligerent in the side of Syrian Government? Iraq is neither striking Rebels or SDF which Government usually clashes with. Iraq strikes ISIS areas that are under SDF siege rather than the government as well. Why do you think Iraq should be included in the side of Gov? Jim7049 (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Iraq is allied with the Syrian government, and the Iraqi militias fighting in Syria alongside anti-government forces haven't exactly gone there against the wishes of their own government. But by the same token, we should have Israel in the infobox too on the side of the opposition. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: So do you support or reject the Iraqi inclusion? Jim7049 (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I am leaning towards support, but not strongly, since Iraq hasn't been involved as much as the other actors (Israel is almost on par with their bombings and material support for the opposition). But implying that the Iraqi government is not aligned with the Syrian is not true (both are allied with Iran as well). FunkMonk (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@FunkMonk:It is already listed under support either way, what's the point of putting it next to Iran and Russia. Jim7049 (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of Iraq for reasons given by Mikrobølgeovn and XavierGreen. Applodion (talk) 11:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: The collapsible lists under "support" refer exclusively to non-combat involvement, which is not applicable in Iraq's case. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: False, it specifically says in the page : title=Support:DO NOT ADD COUNTRIES PROVIDING NON LETHAL SUPPORT. THIS WAS AGREED UPON AT THE TALK PAGE.! So support refers to lethal aid, and non combat involvement is not mentioned at all. Jim7049 (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: In conflict infoboxes, "support" means non-combat involvement. "Lethal support" would be military training, weapons, etc. "Supporters" provide those things, while not engaging in combat themselves. Countries that provide other types of support, such as humanitarian aid, are not included. (I am personally not a fan of including those at all, but it is what it is). Anyhow, it is irrelevant - as I have proved, Iraq is a combatant, not a "supporter". Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: There is no set rule for every infobox, in this article it has been agreed that only lethal aid providing countries be included in support. Which Iraq hasn't even provided anyway. So I don't know why Iraq should be included in support, let alone right next to the Gov as a combatant. Jim7049 (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: Your first sentence - reread what I wrote. Second sentence - false, and irrelevant. Third sentence - has been explained multiple times. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Ok well what you are doing is called Original Research and you are breaking the Wikipedia's rules. Even if all users agree with you, you cannot put something up without a source. SO you must present a source that claims Iraq is supporting the Syrian Government, so far there has been none. Jim7049 (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: I have provided sources. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn:There is no mention in any of those sources that Iraq is supporting the Syrian Government.Jim7049 (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: The sources say Iraq is fighting ISIS on behalf of the Syrian government in Deir ez-Zor. Again - what more do you need? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Can you present this source where is says on behalf of the Syrian government. Jim7049 (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: It acts with the approval of the Syrian government (unlike the US-led coalition). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: That doesn't mean anything and is Original Research, like I said before. Can you present this source where is says on behalf of the Syrian government.Jim7049 (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: It's how I chose to formulate it in this discussion, and it doesn't matter. Iraq is acting in Syria with the approval of Assad, hence it is a combatant in the Syrian Civil War. Can conclude this ridiculous discussion already? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: I'm asking to you to provide a source and you don't have one, you cannot make edits without a source. So please present one or end the discussion and admit your mistake. Jim7049 (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: I have provided sources, and I'm done talking to a wall. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn:Like I said, the source you provided does not mention support to Syrian Government.

@Jim7049: [18] [19] [20] [21] That enough? Please stop asking for sources when I've already provided them. Plain denial does not work, anyone reading this discussion can see what you are doing. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: It only mentions air strikes against ISIS in Syria, it does not mention any support to the Syrian Government. Jim7049 (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: It's fighting Assad's enemies, with Assad's approval - just like Russia and Iran are doing. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn:There are sources that say Iran and Russia are supporting Syrian Government, there isn't for Iraq.

Again, [22] [23] [24] [25] Iraq's role as a combatant has been proven, and it's alignment with the Syrian government has been proven. I'm fine with including a footnote saying that its cooperation with the Assad government is solely against ISIS, and I believe I have already suggested that. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn:None of these sources mention a support for Assad. Striking ISIS could help SDF as well. Jim7049 (talk) 02:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: Those are not mutually exclusive. It is doing it with the approval of Assad, just like Russia is doing. Whether it helps SDF or not is irrelevant. Iraq is a combatant, and since it was invited by the Syrian government, it belongs in the said column. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Assad's approval has no relation to helping Assad. Nor does the source claim so. Jim7049 (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: Iraq's role as a combatant has been proven, and it's alignment with the Syrian government has been proven. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: No original research. Jim7049 (talk) 02:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn:"This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Jim7049 (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm done dealing with a broken record. @FunkMonk: @XavierGreen: @Applodion: Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. Jim7049 (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

If all of this is about including Iraq as a belligerent, including it in the infobox is fine. I could see the original research angle, too, if a grander claim was being made, e.g "Syrian Government cooperates with the Iraqi government", but as long as it's just the infobox, it seems fine to include them. The footnote could be a good idea. Eik Corell (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Eik Corell: Jim7049's argument consists entirely of denying what you just wrote, even though the sources are here for anyone to see. This discussion should be closed and he should be ignored. This is not the Argument Clinic. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: Explain to me how I am violating Wikipedia's rules. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Wikipedia:No original research. Jim7049 (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: I know original research is not allowed. Again: Explain to me how I am violating Wikipedia's rules. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: I just did. Jim7049 (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: Iraq's military involvement is backed up by reliable sources. Why are you so determined to keep this censored? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Because it is original research, and no source mentions it. Jim7049 (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: Did you ever read the sources you keep deleting? [26] [27] [28] [29]Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Yes, original research. Jim7049 (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: Are you categorically opposed to mentioning Iraq's undisputed involvement, or are you merely opposed to placing it in the left column? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn:I'm opposed to the change you're trying to make because it is original research. Also learn how to properly align your replies so I don't have to keep doing them for you. Jim7049 (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: Explain why Iraq's involvement should be censored. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: I don't have to explain to you anything, you cannot make changes without a source mentioning it. You still aren't aligning you replies as well, which shows you have no idea how Wikipedia works. Jim7049 (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: Did you ever read the sources you keep deleting? [30] [31] [32] [33] Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jim7049: "Assad Authorizes Iraq to Attack ISIS in Syria" "Assad gives Iraq green light to launch attacks in Syria without approval" "Iraqi jets strike ISIS target in Syria a day after Damascus carte blanche" Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Iraq now appears as both a combatant (2018 airstrikes) and supporter (2017 airstrikes) in the infobox. You should sort out the mess. --178.223.138.115 (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

No. Iraq bombing ISIS targets - which are/were main belligerents in the Iraqi Civil War (2014–2017) does not make Iraq a main belligerent in the Syrian civil war. If an when Iraq becomes involved with ground troops and/or takes an actual position in the civil war (beyond targeting a single participant) - there might be merit for inclusion. (said the same below in an edit request).Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Since when is the definition of belligerency restricted to ground fighting? NATO was a belligerent power in the Kosovo War and had no ground troops whatsoever engaged, relying solely on air power. The United States itself is listed as a belligerent under CJTF–OIR in this infobox, and yet does not regularly conduct ground combat operations nor does it focus its engagement as a belligerent beyond ISIS.XavierGreen (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC, Iraq as a belligerent

Should Iraq be included as a "belligerent" in the infobox? 08:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Including Iraq a belligerent in the infobox is misleading. Before it's inclusion only countries with ground troops were put under their side, Iran and Russia for Government and Turkey for opposition. All these 3 countries have troops on the frontlines as well air support to their side and a support against the fight against all 3 belligerents. Iraq on the other hand has no troops in Syria and has only provided air support against a single belligerent, ISIS. If Iraq is to be included outside of support than so should US and Israel, who have both provided air support the opposition several times. My suggestion is to just exclude Iraq and keep things bold by only placing Russia, Iran and Turkey and keeping those who provide air strikes in support section. Jim7049 (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• No. Iraq bombing ISIS targets - which are/were main belligerents in the Iraqi Civil War (2014–2017) does not make Iraq a main belligerent in the Syrian civil war. If an when Iraq becomes involved with ground troops and/or takes an actual position in the civil war (beyond targeting a single participant) - there might be merit for inclusion. Icewhiz (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• No. Should stay as a supporting roll where other states who have done bombing raids are. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Every other state which is conducting bombing raids (except for Isreal is listed as a belligerent, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United States, Canada, ect are all listed as belligerents.XavierGreen (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

There's already an RfC on this, which has not yet been officially closed. I don't feel like repeating all the arguments here, but if the war on ISIS is a theatre of the Syrian Civil War, then Iraq is a belligerent in said conflict. Not to mention Iraq carried out strikes with the blessing of the Syrian government, after the official end of the Iraqi Civil War. The only way for Iraq to possibly not be a belligerent in the Syrian Civil War, is if the war on ISIS was not part of the war. If we omit Iraq, we might as well omit the entire coalition for the same reason. Sources: [34] [35] [36] [37] Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Pokerplayer513: Countries that have carried out bombing raids are mentioned under a collapsible list in the right column. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn Correct, they are listed under the "support" section and not as a belligerent. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

No, most of them are in a separate collapsible list under CJTF–OIR, as Russia is not a part of CJTF-OIR but rather aligned with the Syrian Government, Russia is listed separately in a different column.XavierGreen (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Pokerplayer513: Look closer. There's a dash between the SDF and the CJTF–OIR. The CJTF–OIR is listed as a belligerent, not as a "supporter". Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• Yes - Iraq is a belligerent power in the Syrian Civil War, they should be listed as such in the infobox, they have conducted air raids.XavierGreen (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, for reasons stated in the previous discussion on the same exact question. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• No. Only countries with ground troops are listed so far, Iran, Russia and Turkey. Iraq's role is limited to airstrikes against ISIS. They should be listed under support just like US is. Jim7049 (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

All the CJTF–OIR countries are listed as belligerents. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Coalition countries are a part of "Support to the SDF" they are not belligerents. Jim7049 (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

They are also listed separately under CJTF-OIR as co-belligerents of the SDF. CJTF-OIR is clearly listed as a belligerent in the infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Then it should be moved under support to avoid confusion. Jim7049 (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

They are not "supporters", they are belligerents. If we were to implement your ground troops only-criteria, we'd have to reinterpret decades of military history. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

No you wouldn't, the infobox is suppose to be brief, if you add all 29 countries doing airstrikes as a belligerent it loses its credibility. Therefore Iraq should be added under support. Jim7049 (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not "supposed to be brief", it's supposed to include all belligerents. The only "loss of credibility" is when we censor it for whatever reason, which is basically what you're proposing. It would be convenient for us if this was a simple civil war with only three foreign countries interfering, but that is not the case. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The question shouldn't be airstrikes vs. ground support. The question is whether a party is actually involved in the war as opposed to conducting strikes (air, ground, sea, whatever) against a party that is involved. Iraq is striking ISIS (whom it is fighting in Iraq) - it not taking sides (at least overtly, yet) in regards to the regime vs. rebels. it is not involved (yet) in any potential carve up of turf in Syria. Icewhiz (talk) 08:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: It would be one thing if we were talking about occasional spillover incidents (and there have been plenty of those), but in December 2018, the Assad regime officially granted Iraq permission to strike ISIS on Syrian territory, and this was followed by a series of airstrikes. In other words, this is more than just spillover from the Iraq Civil War (which "officially" ended a year ago). I believe that Assad's endorsement, as well as the scope of Iraq's involvement, is sufficient to consider Iraq a belligerent in the Syrian Civil War, albeit playing a marginal role in the wider war. I've already suggested adding a footnote to erase any doubt that Iraq is only a marginal belligerent, what would your thoughts be on that? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

In my mind, while they are a belligerent vs. ISIS (as a continuation of the Iraqi war), they are not a party to the Syrian war. To be a party in the war, I would expect them to be a stakeholder in the outcome - e.g. claiming territory and/or supporting a party that is. The difference between the Russia and Iran here is that Russia and Iran are supporting a side (in this case the regime) against all other foes in the war (as well as playing their own semi-independent agendas in the region). The Iraqi strikes at the moment are limited to ISIS are are performed to further an Iraqi agenda outside of Syria (namely - curtailing the ISIS threat to Iraqi territory). It definitely is in the grey zone here between being involved/supporting and being a party. Icewhiz (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: That sounds a lot like the arguments that were presented back when the question was whether or not Israel should be included, and I get where you are coming from. I believe it was valid until Iraq received Assad's blessings to go after ISIS, which crosses the fine line between spillover and direct - albeit minor - involvement. The complicating factor is that the airstrikes appear to be also coordinated with the United States and/or the SDF, as they are carried out in an area where there is an ongoing SDF offensive. What if we write in parantheses that Iraq is only taking part in a single offensive? That way we would both include Iraq and make clear that its involvement is certainly marginal. Countries playing a marginal role are usually mentioned, and there are ways to include them without giving our readers a wrong impression. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2019

The NETHERLANDS is not anymore active in Syria. Please change it to 2014-2019 At infobox. Shadow4dark (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The source you link to says "Most of the 150 Dutch military personnel supporting the F-16 missions over Iraq and East Syria will return to the Netherlands by the end of the week." It does not say that the Netherlands is completely removing all forces from Syria. If you can find a better source, please reactivate this template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

References