Talk:Syrian civil war

FAQ: infobox

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.

---

Question

Why is the infobox short? Where is the information about belligerents and other information commonly seen in an infobox?

Answer

The Syrian civil war is an ongoing multi-sided conflict in Syria involving various state-sponsored and non-state actors. [From the opening sentence of the lead]

Previously, this article had a very long infobox, which attempted to capture the complex relationships between the many belligerent parties in this civil war and present other information such as strengths and casualties.

An RfC was held proposing a substantially shorter version as we now see (Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 51#RfC on infobox).

To summarise some key points, an infobox is a simple, at-a-glance summary of key points from the article. It is unsuited to capturing nuance and complex information. Quoting from MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE:

The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.

The consensus of the RfC was for the substantially shorter version of the infobox.

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.

Issues

The whole article needs a rewrite, it for example lists allied forces as bellingerents. And it's locked so that nobody can actually do anything to deal with its problems.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.207.102 (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I suppose that just as consensus can change, so can allies change. Feel free to use {{Edit semi-protected}} here to suggest specific edits. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, needs to be re-written. Starting with the title that reads "CIVIL" war. When foreign forces unlawfully invade and annihilate your country, it is not a civil war. It is a hostile and aggressive attack we call today terror. Calling it a "civil" war is a misleading political statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.29.185 (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It's quite common for foreign forces to intervene in a civil war. That doesn't (necessarily) change the internal aspect of the war. — kwami (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I would support the notion that this was not a civil war but a proxy war. Mercenaries, foreign or national, fighting a proxy war for foreign powers, paid, armed and guided by those foreign powers, among which the CIA, do not qualify as a local uprising and part of a civil war. Mregelsberger (talk) 17:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

For the people who are defending USA and NATO, USA with the help of turkey, they posioned syrian civillians by dropping posion gas from airplanes. If that is not a war crime then I do not know what is. 155.4.141.62 (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that even the title - Syrian Civil War - is misleading and should be changed. This is corroborated by people here and by information, that is increasingly available, not least the continuation of the proxy war between the USA and Russia in Ukraine. A proxy war opposing armed gangs managed by foreign powers and a national army is not a civil war, even though it apparently is among national parties. The "conflict in Ukraine" as it is called by the OHCHR is quite similar and is named on Wikipedia as "War in Donbas" described, without further proof as follows: "The war in Donbas, or Donbas war was a phase of the Russo-Ukrainian War in the Donbas region of Ukraine." This could also be said of the war in Syria, which could be named the "War in Syria", a "phase of the proxy war of the USA and Russia, opposing US mercenary groups assisted by US and US ally troupes and the Syrian army with Syrian allies (Russia, Iran, Hezbollah)". The war in Syria actually is not over, with the USA illegally occupying the north-eastern part of the country, i.e. the oil fields of Syria, producing oil on its own account without permission from the national government. Nothing is "civil" there. Wikipedia shouldn't get involved in politics and have only one standard, in this case applied to all conflicts alike, without distinction of who is waging them. Mregelsberger (talk) 10:08, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. There is a sentence in there saying that the Syrian Civil War "...started nine years ago..." This page needs work. Livepsycle (talk) 04:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Well said. Spiralwhats in your boxCox (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

References

second cold war in infobox

the conflict isn’t even well defined Bte3000 (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the Second Cold War is not a conflict yet. So it should probably be removed from the list of related conflicts. 2600:1702:5870:5930:50C1:FBB6:27DD:284F (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Damascus Map

Jolani (or Al Shari' as he's known now) is currently in Damascus and his troops (slowly filtering through into the city, including special forces) are unquestionably the ones charged with security in the city. I don't think the Syrian Free Army are the ones that are in command (if they even have the troop count to actually control all the areas that the map gives). Although, I am all for evidences proving me wrong. Ilovedajjal (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Damascus came into the partial control of FSA after the Palmyra offensive (2024) as well as southern operations room following the Southern Syria offensive (2024), the map shows a joint tripartite control between the three factions Waleed (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@M Waleed The Institute for the Study of War disputes effective control of Damascus however. Kaliper1 (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreement between Trump and Putin

Please add to the article Trump's agreement with Putin on the division of spheres of influence, in particular, Ukraine - for Russia, and the Middle East - for the United States. Also, add that many American companies are involved in the extraction of minerals in the Middle East, including oil and gas, the transportation of which to the EU has become possible through Syria thanks to the agreement. 91.210.251.13 (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

What agreement? Rxm1054 (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Status of War RFC

Is the Syrian civil war over? 207.96.32.81 (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

No. I'm pretty sure what's happening right now is still civil war material, mostly due to ISIS and the Kurds. Although, my question is, is this the end of this FIRST Syrian civil war, and a new one began? Or is it just a new phase? Zabezt (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I would say no. There is no end in sight for violence in Syria, especially with the ongoing fight for Manbij, and it remains to be seen if the new government will actually be stable enough not to immediately descend into civil war once again. I’m not sure who edited the article to say it ended today, but I’d wait until a stable government has been established before any drastic changes are made. DarthTFalls12 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. And I reverted the inaccuracy on the infobox, it's way too early to tell. Zabezt (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

As of this comment, the result parameter is used not status parameter for template:Infobox_military_conflict See this edit - [1]207.96.32.81 (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree theres no end in sight, given Assad has fallen there is very much an end in sight if the rebel groups can come to agreement. But I do think its too early to say its over now GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

No. The rebels might start fighting each other so for now its still going GothicGolem29 (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment (not a vote): I don't know a whole lot about the war myself, but if it now only involves people from other/outside countries, then wouldn't this technically be no longer a civil war (i.e. "just a war")? — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not over YET. Hinga toka (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

an important competitor in the Syrian civil war which is rojava does still exist and still fighting in manbaj so it should be ongoing but with adding the information that says Assad regime has fallen or maybe as long nothing is clear for the aftermath of this offensive let's just leave it empty untill something happens 81.215.194.128 (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Basically Not Yet - We rushed to announce the war in Afghanistan as being over and that was a mistake (albeit one that ultimately didn't make too much difference). I'm of the same opinion here: let's have some reliable sources saying it's over before we declare it over based on our own assessments. FOARP (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• Not over. I agree it is not over. if the various opposition groups, factions, and militias do not have any conflicts at all after today, it will be a miracle. i think we need to keep covering this for a while.*:Sm8900 (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The war aim is to overthrow Assad regime since the beginning. It should be declared as over on December 8, 2024. For post-war conflicts, a new article should be created (e.g. Syrian crisis (2011-present)) like Afghanistan conflict and Libyan crisis (2011–present). CobsonEnjoyer (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

the war aim for each group in a war, is to win the war. the different factions are already fighting to win power from the others. Sm8900 (talk) 02:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• This is becoming an issue. People are inserting into the info box "Syrian Opposition victory" despite the infobox claiming the war is ongoing. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  That may be appropriate for Fall of Damascus but on this page is the open question. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

No. There is still fighting between HTS and SDF. In any case we shouldn't hurry but rather wait for RS to assert this. Alaexis_¿question? 21:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not over - Initially, the civil war was only against Bashar al-Assad but there are too many factions for years now who are currently almost as dominant as Assad's regime once was. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Wait we can’t say for sure yet The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Not yet Per the title, the scope of the article is civil warring in Syria. While/if internal fighting continues between different factions after the fall of the Assad government, then ipso facto the civil warring continues. The lead tells us that such factional fighting is within the scope of the article. Most crucially though, the civil war is over when good quality sources explicitly tell us it is - noting that WP:NEWSORG sources are qualified as sources (see also WP:RSBREAKING). Cinderella157 (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• No, there's still fighting between various Islamist forces and Kurdish forces.

Sarrotrkux (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Russian military bases

The term "Russian military bases" will suffice, It's not an occupation at the moment. Zyxrq (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually because the other countries use “occupation” I do think it’s appropriate. Zyxrq (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't an occupation under Assad since they were there with the government's approval. Whether it's an occupation or not in the future will depend on whether whatever future government agrees to Russian bases or not. If it was called an "occupation" when Assad was in power, I agree that it was wrong wording. Sarrotrkux (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Can someone give me the source of the "No man's land territitory"?

I am just going to try dive in further to see if it is 100% accurate as we already took away a bug chunk of what used to be called "unclaimed land". That Inverclyde Guy (talk) 08:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You’re not the only who has questioned this decision to leave unclaimed land. There is no reason to have unclaimed land listed because it has been held by the opposition since yesterday. 2620:6D:C000:1001:117E:80D4:BB60:2991 (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly what I think. It just feels as if we're just putting unclaimed land for the sake of it in a way. That Inverclyde Guy (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• TBH, the sourcing of the map has always been problematic. It seems to be based in large part on Twitter updates from sources that are usually reliable but many of which wouldn't meet WP:RS. The same goes for other conflict-maps (e.g., the old Afghanistan one). FOARP (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Being overly reliant on a news source to mention everything in a conflict like this is how you end up with stuff like Al Queda holding a huge blob of desert in Yemen for years after they lost it in maps 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:22:76C3:528F:EBCF (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  If you can't reliably source something, the option is just not to have it, not to source it to up-to-the-date but unreliable stuff. FOARP (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Map

I believe this map should be removed from the article entirely because it is misinforming. Not only does it not cite any sources, but it also asserts that the Syrian rebel group, RCA, controls 1/3rd of the country, even the capital Damascus. Despite the fact that this group has just 500 fighters.

I have tried overwriting the file but this has failed due to the constant edit warring going on in it with different users. So I suggest removing it from its article. Ecrusized (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Map shouldn't removed but fixed. The source for the map was always the template. Also you're right of US backed FSA controlling such region is impossible. HTS steamrolled Assadist forcest. Beshogur (talk) 11:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I personally disagree: yes, it doesn’t cite sources itself, but each of the claims of certain cities controlled by various groups in the map is supported by sources: you can go to the “detailed map” section and check yourself just in case. I wouldn’t be opposed to adding citations (in fact, it would be a great idea), but I don’t think their lack gives this map a need for deletion. Besides, I do think it’s possible for the RCA to control so much territory given the collapse of Assad’s forces and the fact that much of the territory it advanced into is barren desert with no geographical defenses. LordOfWalruses (talk) 14:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The RCA encircled the north of Damascus so it's more than likely they controlled the land. RowanJ LP (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support removing the map - These maps are almost always sourced largely to Twitter accounts of dubious reliability - that is when there's any source given at all: no source has been given for the last 27 updates to the map, and the most recently-given source was This link to a tweet. It's basically just one big mess of original research collected by enthusiasts. FOARP (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Everything is done through the sources of syria.liveuamap.com RowanJ LP (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  If this is the case then why isn’t the map being updated anymore in the infobox? 206.21.104.107 (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  Map was updated yesterday. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 14:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  "Everything is done through the sources of syria.liveuamap.com" That's absolutely false, a quick glance at that website shows a massively different revision than what you are pushing, and reverting back to. Ecrusized (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  The website merged all the groups together as I believe the people running it weren't bothered to take care of who owns what, In reality when reporting on news of cities being captured they mentioned specifically which group captured them and I believe that's what the wiki map used to be based on. Smol2204 (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  I would also like to add that the old wiki ISIL presence and the current Liveuamap ISIL presence is inaccurate due to the fact ISIL/DAESH don't actually control any territory and didn't even perform an attack in recent times to my knowledge. They just have vague presence over some regions Smol2204 (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not surprised. Keep having to explain to people on Twitter that this map is just something knocked together by hobbyists and it's entirely like ISIS doesn't control any cities. FOARP (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@RowanJ LP is correct. Each of the rebels are separate and Southern Operations Room and RCA took Damascus. However They have all just joined the Transitional Govt so they can be bunched up up but occupation zones canbe shown separate. HTS has not taken Damascus Mayukh Mitra 123 (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Mayukh Mitra 123 I am not questioning you, I am more curious could you give some sources for the transition government? Smol2204 (talk) 16:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Transitional Govt has a Wikipage. Its in the Wikibox map too. Mayukh Mitra 123 (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Updated based on liveuamap

I have updated this file based on https://syria.liveuamap.com/ Let's hope @RowanJ LP: does not disrupt this change as well by reverting back to an unsourced revision based off on their own imagination about how the map is supposed to look. Ecrusized (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, you're just being disrespectful, secondly, the factions aren't united under one umbrella but are separate factions of the Syrian opposition, but I won't change this because you can't understand that anyway. RowanJ LP (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I have spent the past 12 hours trying to explain how references work to you. To put it simply, you need to cite a source. Ecrusized (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

According to your generalized source, syria.liveuamap.com, which has its own citations that state which group controls what. RowanJ LP (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Unless I'm losing my mind, this is what liveuamap currently looks like. There is no distinction on what rebel group controls what. File:Liveuamap 12 9 2024.png Ecrusized (talk) 15:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

That's what liveuamap looks like because it generalizes the Syrian opposition. According to the sources that liveuamap uses there's different groups who control whatever. RowanJ LP (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@RowanJ LP would like to second this, while the war was ongoing and the city control was updated there were announcements that if you checked 99% of the time gave you which group actually controlled the region. Smol2204 (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

If we want to keep the old map, it has to be updated, I don't think there is any "no man's land" right now. Zabezt (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Would like to add while I agree the map should get a proper source this current version pushes the idea that all the rebels are currently united which they are not. What the other person means by liveuamap is the live updates that included which group took which city. As such, the old version of the map would've been more accurate. It could also be sourced by listing a large amount of separate twitter/telegram posts. Smol2204 (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

"rebels are currently united which they are not." According to whom? Any reference for that statement? Ecrusized (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ecrusized I don't think this requires a statement as this was the status quo, there was no statement released saying that the rebels united.

The status quo was that the rebels were separate, yet allied. When liveuamap updated to show them as one there was no announcement stating that the rebel groups had formed some sort of unitary government or central command, which leads me to believe that they had not unified and the people running liveuamap simplified it for server space or some other reason i am not aware of. Smol2204 (talk) 16:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

As far as map goes, the rebels are unified, per the only source cited.

Original research is never allowed. Ecrusized (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

As stated before a person could go back and cite all the twitter/x and telegram announcements declaring every city/region as under the control of a group. Most of these sources are also in Arabic.

This is not original research. These are based on announcements by news resources or otherwise the rebels themselves Smol2204 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

If something cannot be shown accurate, it should not be shown at all. You cannot paint the map in 3 separate random rebel zones based on preference, and assert the readers that that is exactly what is controlled. Unless a reliable source separates were each of these rebel groups operate, they have to be shown in unification. Wikipedia is not a forum where users decide what is written. This is an encylopedia about facts. Ecrusized (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I have two slight problems with your version, the RCA on the UA map is mixed with most of the other rebels, while yours still has them separated. And the ISIS blobs on your map look different too. Zabezt (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I will adjust those momentarily. Ecrusized (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad we agreed on something. Zabezt (talk) 15:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ecrusized would like to mention that the ISIL blobs in liveuamap are also inaccurate as ISIL doesn't control any territory, they commit acts of terrorism.

If you check the areas highlighted in liveuamap and the old Wikipedia map as ISIL you will find that there are no farms, no military bases, settlements, roads or anything else a group could base itself on. Smol2204 (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

And would like to ask as to why you haven't included the Manbij update? Smol2204 (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

As I've said above, this is not for Wikipedians to decide. We only copy what references say. Ecrusized (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

So you would rather believe and push forward the idea that ISIL has stayed alive in random portions of the desert (these are mostly random as to my knowledge, the original wikipedia map did not cite sources for the ISIL control and neither did liveuamap, except for the short period of time when a rumour that ISIL was moving in on Palmyra started and their short capture of 2 settlements on the Euphrates). Smol2204 (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

May I also ask again why the Manbij update shown on liveuamap isn't shown on the current version of the map

The Manbij advancement is also an example of what has been stated that smaller sources make posts that announce territorial control under certain groups which the map no longer updates to include on liveuamap. If you check the "notification" bubbles on liveuamap you will notice that it specifically mentions the SNA captured the region. Smol2204 (talk) 16:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect, what you're saying is meaningless, if there isn't a source, not a single change can be made. Ecrusized (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The Manbij update is shown, you may need to refresh your browser data if it isn't showing up. Ecrusized (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You have it marked with the wrong people, SNA is the one doing it. Livemap marks all gains post-November 26 under the same green opposition color other then the SDF since they used to be a Kurdish group. They aren’t a perfect source and it’s better to use the sources in their side bar 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:22:76C3:528F:EBCF (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I would probably support a change to the unified map. Even if the separated map is more informative, updating it with a source is no longer possible, so the map will likely become out-of-date very soon. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 20:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Propose temporarily change map to ISW-CTP source

Current map based of LiveUAMap colours

Proposed temporary map based of ISW-CTP reporting

I propose changing the map to this one based off the ISW-CTP source as a temporary measure to resolve the deadlock and get rid of the badly out of date current map. Something has clearly gone wrong with the LiveUAMap and it is causing a deadlocked disagreement here. Changing to a new source gets around this problem for now. Hopefully the LiveUAMap will get better soon, but until such time as the greater differences can be resolved I propose changing to a differently sourced map. —Korakys (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Idk if that’s the right decision since most of the map is terra nullius (which is obviously not the case) and there are so much more Assad holdouts/Russian bases than what is actually in Syria. LordOfWalruses (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

According to ISW, its supposed to represent 'Lost Regime Territory'? rather than holdouts. Quote; "The Lost Regime Territory layer represents territory that the Syrian Regime used to control before November 27, 2024, but no longer does. The intent of this layer is to visualize territory that the Syrian Regime no longer exercises control over. Opposition rebel groups are very likely operating in areas within the Lost Regime Territory layer. ISW-CTP will map –and where possible identify –these rebel groups’ verified presence when ISW-CTP collects enough data to do so." I do agree that its a bit... empty however. Though Terra nullius is also defined by effective control. Kaliper1 (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC) (Edit descriptive)

@Kaliper1 I would personally be for this, ISW-CTP is surely a more trustworthy source than Liveuamap and is probably a more accurate display of the map, especially considering that the current map hasn't been updated due to the argument. Simply don't understand why the Al Tanf and Southern front rebels don't even border Damascus, but that'll probably be updated later. Smol2204 (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Maybe we can combine elements of the two for the best fit, but if not, solely using ISW will do. LordOfWalruses (talk) 16:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Smol2204 For Al Tanf and Southern Front, this could be from how ISW interprets 'effective control'. Wherein to ISW, “Control is a tactical task that requires the commander to maintain physical influence over a specified area to prevent its use by an enemy or to create conditions necessary for successful friendly operations.” So i would think that bypassing towns for an offensive or rapid troop movements would be minimally covered. This does explain how HTS managed to form a majority Transitional Government from their apparatus, looking through their administrative holds. Either that or ISW have yet to receive updates from the ground. Kaliper1 (talk) 00:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kaliper1 thanks! Smol2204 (talk) 00:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kaliper1 a possible solution to the terra nullius problem would be to highlight the territory with the colour of HTS to show "de jure" control. Seeing as they're the leading figure and there's no one else in that territory (except the people populating it) the control should go to them by default. Smol2204 (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I see. ISW would do. LordOfWalruses (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Support:

• Korakys (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Why are the other rebel groups shown as controlling Manbij?

It’s the SNA doing it who you have colored differently.

Livemap colors all rebels gains the same so I know it looks that way, but the sidebar info clearly states it’s the SNA doing it.

(the current map is dumb btw, just because Livemap took the lazy route and lumped everything on their map doesn’t mean we should. Just use the sources in the side info bar, the prior version from yesterday was fine) 68.144.93.30 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

(the current map is dumb btw, just because Livemap took the lazy route and lumped everything on their map doesn’t mean we should. Just use the sources in the side info bar, the prior version from yesterday was fine)

Seconded. We should revert to Yesterday's map

Also Manbij should be coloured SNA Mayukh Mitra 123 (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Like I’m not against lumping them together in a couple months when they actually finalize agreements, but at the moment it’s paper thin and we saw how that went in Libya.(the 2020 agreements still never really fully happened even if no war broke out).

Especially since the Southern Front and Revolution Commando Army are pretty closely linked, but the Salvation Government less so and they still use a different flag. Hold off on that.

But regardless the map as it stands is factually wrong due to Manbij. Livemap considers SNA part of the opposition and marks all their gains beyond November 26 lines part of the vague green ‘opposition blob’. The SNA are the ones fighting the SDF there and I think that screw up is proof we can’t just copy Livemap 1-1, use the sources in the sidebar as we did prior.

I also really want an actual look into the ISIS situation. This is starting to remind me of the infamous Yemen Al Queda blob that stayed on maps because of circular sourcing and it having been captured years prior slipping through. Some of these maps have been mostly unchanged since the conventional defeat of Isis in 2018 and some might have not actually meant those specific spots and just been shorthanding and simplifying “ISIS Remnants in this general area” 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:22:76C3:528F:EBCF (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. People jumping the gun hard trying to portray every rebel faction sans the sna and rojava as some unified government. PequodOnStationAtLZ (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The area North of Aleppo is SNA, not anyone else

Same issue as in Manbij except worse as they’ve held that for nearly two weeks now.

Did someone just take one look at Livemaps color scheme and not check the sidebar? They kind of blanket draw the opposition in one color and mark everything post November 26 that isn’t SDF Kurd Yellow in the same green. Probably due to being caught off guard their Syria templates are old.

We don’t do this for Ukraine, this is sloppy. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:22:76C3:528F:EBCF (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. We shouldnt lump all apposition into one colour Mayukh Mitra 123 (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually I agree, it’s confusing and it makes terrorists look like the good guys. Zyxrq (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Even with the transitional govt (like 24 hours old btw), it is way more informative to show which rebel factions control what territory. PequodOnStationAtLZ (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Stop editing the Map every 2 minutes. Also make the "Syrian Opposition Map" linked to the map on this article

It should not be happening, there are so many reverts that HTS controls all of Syria while they don't. They only govern a small fraction. It needs to be waited on how the territories will be deald after a stable government comes around, but for now LEAVE IT AS IT IS DerEchteJoan (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

There may be flaws with how the map is edited, but we can fix that and improve our methods as we go along. It’s still good to keep the map consistently updated to keep it up to date with the rapidly evolving information of the situation. LordOfWalruses (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. We can keep the map updated without merging all the different rebel factions together. Easily the most glaring issue with that is the green blob seemed to show the tranistional govt attacking manbij when it was actually the sna. PequodOnStationAtLZ (talk) 19:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:B54A:FB85:2DF1:9AF9 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

We should go back to the transitional government map

Not only is it much more accurate given how the Syrian rebels have created a temporary provisional government that has assumed control over the country, but it also makes no sense to have the old map with the new legend. LordOfWalruses (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Luckily someone has reverted the legend to match. Considering this transitional government was established within the last day or two, the situation is still fluid enough that it is more informative to present which factions control what territory. PequodOnStationAtLZ (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It's an agreement that's on paper only at the moment and the HTS is notably far less involved(they still have a different flag).

Also it was only because one guy wanted to just copy Livemap verbatim which is dumb as they don't distinguish anything and lumped all the rebel gains together including SNA attacking Majib which made it look like we were saying everyone was.

Current map is fine template was. It needs the grey zone removed, the Manbij offensive by SNA included, and I think we should re-check some of the ISIS stuff to avoid circular sourcing and another Yemeni Al Qaeda situation. Do they actually hold those specific spots or was that one sites shorthand to represent 'ISIS Remnants in Rural Areas' back in 2019 that nobody is checking or verifying anymore. Given even in all this chaos they didn't do anything I have my doubts they have much left 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:B54A:FB85:2DF1:9AF9 (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Just following the sourcing trail, looks like the grey zone was mostly split between HTS and SDF, SDF might have pulled back from a few spots too or maybe that was misreported. Nothing from the Commando Army, if anything we might be overselling them in that direction.

The SNA has taken most of the Manbij pocket including the city itself. Main supply road was also just captured so I don't expect the SDF to hold in the pocket for long. They've been dealing with issues controlling some new territory elsewhere and especially in Maskanah so keep an eye on that too.

And I couldn't find good sourcing for specific ISIS control anywhere 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:B54A:FB85:2DF1:9AF9 (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Syrian Transitional government map is more accurate here.

Also, other maps show that Military Operations Command have full military control of areas of the Syrian Transitional Government. (source: https://syria.liveuamap.com/en) Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

i also agree Sanad real (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Would you like some more useful sources?

Hello! Unfortunately, I'll have no time at all to help you update this and other pages with more information on the offensive and the fall of the regime; however, I just wanted to leave you some useful sources you can use to add more details and links yourself.

Obviously, we've already got plenty of good live timelines to choose from, including The Guardian, The New York Times, the BBC, El País and Le Monde.

However, I think you should check out the material from Il Post and Al Jazeera, too: the former outlet has put together a very on-point timeline, with lots of references to other newspaper and social media content, as well several in-depth articles like this one, while the latter has created a bunch of maps and graphics that could be quite useful as Creative Commons content that could be uploaded on Wikimedia portals.

Let me know if this helps! Oltrepier (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Syrian civil war

Did the Syrian civil war end with the fall of Assad? Can we consider the conflict against the Kurds as the second Syrian civil war? 89.155.47.76 (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Basically, the civil war is over. The Ba'athist government has fallen and Syrian Transitional Government (STG) has seized power. Territories outside the control of STG are under the control of foreign occupation forces of states like United States, State of Israel, Turkiye, etc. Conflict or war against occupation forces are not regarded as civil war. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

That would be kind of arbitrary, SNA-SDF fighting has been ungoing for a while with a major escalation in 2019.

In fact, the current Manbij offensive started nearly a week ago when the HTS had only just captured Aleppo.

There's been no distinct time gap. If there's a prolonged period of minimal fighting maybe(1992-1996 Afghanistan war followed that example), but seeing as SNA and SDF fighting that started before Damascus fell is continuing making a split now feels dumb. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:B54A:FB85:2DF1:9AF9 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I would say the main conflict is already over. However, there are still conflicts going on, such as Operation Dawn of Freedom, the War against the Islamic State, and the 2024 Israeli invasion of Syria. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

We have offensive operations between SNA and SDF that started over a week ago still ongoing, those aren't suddenly in a different war. We split Libya because there was a gap, we'll need to wait and see for now 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:B54A:FB85:2DF1:9AF9 (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

agree with comment above, the conflict is continuing. Sm8900 (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Can whoever keeps trying to color the map one color stop?

Not only is it objectively wrong with the SNA holdings in North Aleppo and Manbij being given to the wrong side for some reason*(*probably just blindly following Livemap, which had to rush everything when this came out of nowhere and treats all groups except the former Kurds under one color), but it's acting like some brand new agreements on paper that not everyone is on board with are fact and law and there's zero chance of a Libya situation where it never actually happens. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:B54A:FB85:2DF1:9AF9 (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Also Military Operations Command is the white faction, mostly HTS, but some of the smaller groups they merged up with in Idilib. It's not everyone.

(On the subject the prior map heavily overstated Revolutionary Commando Army control on both the East and Western Side) 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:B54A:FB85:2DF1:9AF9 (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

By actually reading the names and checking the sources, it looks like the northern area was actually reached by the Millitary Operations Command(AKA HTS and the smaller groups allied to them), with the Revolutionary Commando Army coming in via the roads to the East originating from Palmyra and getting as far as Douma, and the Southern Operations Command taking the bulk of the Southwestern half of the city and some of the North West corner. They took most of the southern border with Lebanon up until around that little tip piece sticking out, the road coming from north of there is HTS and co.

So lot's of adjustments around Damacus, plus I think just based on the rule of thumb with deserts of splitting it down the middle the Al-Tanf RCA looks too damn large on both sides. I also cannot find a source they control the T3 Pumping Station and nearby helipad at Bayt Al Juhayshal, and the main road to get there is via Arak which the MOC/HTS took so it's more likely to be them, especially seeing as they're the one who advanced towards the river and linked up with the Kurds.

https://imgur.com/h5gDWOX Here's an extremely ugly approximation of what I mean 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:B54A:FB85:2DF1:9AF9 (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

If you’re referring to the map featuring the STG, I feel like that map should stay since that’s the governing body assigned to most of Syria at this moment. LordOfWalruses (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Has the STG been recognized by all the syrian opposition groups? To what capacity does it even exist execpt on paper? ManU9827 (talk) 23:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure, but it’s the closest thing Syria currently has to an official government, and fighting between opposition has mostly ceased (from what I can tell), so I still think it’s the best representation of the situation in Syria. LordOfWalruses (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It hasn't, SNA is currently on the offensive against the SDF 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:9808:6458:F853:30EC (talk) 04:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Well I don’t think the SDF is technically part of the opposition, and none of the other rebel groups have joined the SNA in its offensive. LordOfWalruses (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Syrian transitional government or split-up Syrian opposition?

So far, at the time of writing, there have been a grand total of 7 12 back-and-forth reverts over whether there should be a split-up Syrian opposition or a unified Syrian transitional government. Please, let's make the decision final.

Option A: Use the status quo of a split-up Syrian opposition map

Option B: Use a unified Syrian opposition map, under the banner of the Syrian transitional government

Option C: Other ideas excluding A, B, and D

Option D: Use the ISW-CTP map

(Note: I have also posted this discussion on the talk page of the map) The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 23:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option A, we dont know to what capacity the transitional government even exists besides on paper and we dont know if the other syrian oppoisition groups besides HTS have recognized it. the problem is we have no accurate maps to show the split up opposition groups. ManU9827 (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option A Alongside the fact the unified opposition doesn't fully extend to the SNA and SDF, it's solely a paper organization at the moment and we've seen in Libya how these sort of things can stall out and never end up happening. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:B54A:FB85:2DF1:9AF9 (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok so both here and on the map page we got unanimous Option A's, can we resplit the map? 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:9808:6458:F853:30EC (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• Option B, only because the one @Ecrusized made is more up-to-date. But if the file currently up ever gets updated, then I’d be fine with both options. Zabezt (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option B because it is the only one that cites a source https://syria.liveuamap.com/. The former one does not cite any sources. And it is completely made up by some Wikipedia editors perception of who should control what in Syria, and it is also rather ridiculous, because it asserts that one of the rebel groups, RCA, controls a 1/3rd of the country, including the capital Damascus, among with many other large cities. This is despite the fact that this group having less than 500 fighters. Ecrusized (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option B We can’t avoid OR with Option A. JahlilMA (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Option B : There is no split oppositon. HTS-led alliance (which has established the Syrian transitional government) has gained control of Daraa, Damascus, Aleppo and Deir-ez-Zor.

Source: Syria war live tracker: Maps and charts (Al-Jazeera) Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: At this point the only group where there is an argument to separate them is the Turkish backed group (SNA? i think), because they seem to be acting on their own by fighting the SDF whereas the other groups don't seem to be doing so. 2601:406:8500:D790:8416:E4E4:B4F0:741A (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't the status of the Golan Heights not on the map?

It's Syrian land occupied by Israel and the map should reflect that. Charles Essie (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

i agree Sanad real (talk) 05:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

SNA part of Syrian Transition Government

SNA must be part of the new Syrian Transition Government 2409:40D0:1035:5797:F1BA:D3F0:B721:FCE9 (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Idk if that’s the best move since the SIG is still its own entity, and the SNA is still in its own war against the SDF. LordOfWalruses (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Should we change the color of the SDF to a more neon color.

With the new colors of the map for the STG and the SNA, the goldenrod yellow of the SDF doesn’t really fit anymore, and I feel like it would fit-in better if it was more of a neon yellow. LordOfWalruses (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

i' be okay with that Sanad real (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Civil War status

I understand that there are ongoing disputes, like the Kurdish vs FSA-Turkish clashes, and also a probability of future clashes (e.g.: Alawites vs new Syrian government, Tahrir al-Sham vs secularists, transitional government vs Interim Government and others possible conflicts that we obviously all wish to avoid). But... the civil war purpose from the beggining was to overthrown Assad, wasn't it? What's the meaning of the "ongoing" status? Former opposition (I mean both the Oppoisition and the Rojava) won over the former government and the ISIS. The fact that the former opposition groups maybe have their own civil war in the future, does not make it the same civil war. I believe that the civil war that began in 2011 is over, after the fall of Damascus. Don't you think so? Greek Rebel (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you one thousand percent. While there's still ongoing violence (Turkish and Israeli invasions, Rojava vs Interim Government, etc.), I think it's obvious that the civil war we all know is over. Perhaps make a new article titled "Post civil war violence in Syria" or something? Libya has one for 2012-2014 (after Qaddafi was toppled and the 2011 civil war ended). KeysofDreams (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that in Libya that gap had very little fighting and no large scale offensives, and there was a complete break between the goals of the first civil war and the goals of the second.

The SDF-SNA conflict is not some new thing, it's been going on for years in THIS civil war, and the current offensive at Manbij started while the SAA was still running Damascus. Acting like the Rojava fighting in Manbij a week ago is part of the civil war(or all the shit in 2019 with the Trump phone call), but the stuff on this side of the line after Damascus fell isn't is dumb.

Wait and see a bit, if the SNA continues to fight the SDF that's still part of the same conflict, doubly so if things between the other groups breakdown. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:9808:6458:F853:30EC (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Let's wait to see if there's an immediate continuation or not. Give it a few weeks 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:9808:6458:F853:30EC (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the civil war with Assad as we know it, is over. There may be further post war actions as things settle down. Taking Libya as a precedent makes sense. Deathlibrarian (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

But in the case of Libya fighting stopped full scale for nearly 3 years and there the issue that caused the Second Civil War was seperate from what caused the first one, there wasn't an ongoing fight between them.

SDF and SNA have been fighting for years, there was a huge flareup in 2019 after the Trump phone call, and the Manbij offensive started BEFORE Damascus fell. If these two didn't exist and we were just talking about the 3 main factions in the capital I'd agree, that is the Libya scenario, but these two are still full scale fighting and it would be dumb to act like that was part of the civil war until suddenly it wasn't, this has been a thing for years.

If it dies down sure, if they continue pushing and taking stuff we shouldn't. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:9808:6458:F853:30EC (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

SDF and SNA are fighting for years, and unfortunately SDF is going to be helpless so the probabilities of the clashes to stop are near zero. But this is another war. The cause of the civil war was to remove Assad from office and dissolve the status of the Syrian Arab Republic as we knew it. This has happened, it's over. If the clashes between the SNA and the democratic forces continue, we can continue it at Rojava conflict, as an event that started within the Syrian Civil War, but continue after the end of it. Greek Rebel (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Only if there is a distinct pause which has not happened. Give it time 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:48FE:8D7E:C9C0:93B5 (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Kobani is now under assault by SNA.

If there was a distinct pause of even 6-12 months, or if they hadn’t been fighting for years already, I’d agree. But this is way too interconnected to split without it looking dumb 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:48FE:8D7E:C9C0:93B5 (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes but in my opinion, SNA - SDF clashes is not part of the civil war anymore. Greek Rebel (talk) 17:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

…What is this then a minor disagreement? Uncivil war? People are dying 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:91D3:331A:88B0:14DA (talk) 08:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

the civil war is currently continuing. there is no accepted authority, and there are various armed factions fighting to gain power. that is the definition of a civil war. Sm8900 (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we should divide this article, like the we did in the Libyan one? one article for the war against Assad and the other for the aftermath. Coltsfan (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

it's the same war. normally when one side loses in a civil war, the fighting is over because one unified side has won. in this case, the war is not resolved, and no one has won. the war is continuing, over exactly the same issues; namely who will control the country of syria. Sm8900 (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, the war was to overthrough Gaddafi. That was done, article says the war is over and a new one takes place for the spoils of war. Same logic here. The war was fought to dethrone Bashar. That was concluded, the regime is no more. There is no forces loyal to him fighting. It's a new fight now, for the spoils of power. Coltsfan (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

as you know, the article itself is already called Syrian Civil War, and so its scope already includes the current conflict. there is an article called Syrian revolution, but as this version shows, it was not used to cover the conflict as a whole. Sm8900 (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Image size in infobox

I see some editors (Zabezt) forcing the image size in the infobox by specifying a px value. This is contrary to WP:IMGSIZELEAD. Please revert. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Military Situation Map is Inaccurate

The main Military Situation Map is inaccurate. It needs to be corrected. Look at how the BBC drew it:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2ex7ek9pyeo

46.31.118.94 (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The map is unreliable. It is being updated with unreliable sources or no sources at all. https://syria.liveuamap.com/ is not a reliable source. Below is a reminder on how to create a reliable map. Map discussions should take place at Talk:Control_of_cities_during_the_Syrian_civil_war and lead to the update of a reliable template. Once we have a reliable template then we can print screen it into a reliable SVG map picture file. I therefore call on everyone to go to Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map and help us have a reliable up to date template. Then, making a reliable SVG map becomes trivial.

Remember what happened to the Afganistan map? It was being updated with unreliable sources (or no sources) and ended up being deleted after a deletion discussion! Tradedia^talk 11:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The above graphic is also not a reliable way of generating a map, but instead a way of generating a WP:SYNTH. There is no way of editors creating their own map that isn't basically original research. FOARP (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I understand you want to delete the map, but if we assume we want to keep it, then the above graphic is the least unreliable way to do it. Tradedia^talk 18:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't keep a map that's just a bunch of original research. FOARP (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If the map fight has settled, some updates

SNA captured the Manbij pocket from SDF.

The boundaries in Damascus area and southeast of Palmyra, especially regarding the RCA, need adjustment 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:48FE:8D7E:C9C0:93B5 (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

SNA attacking towards Kobani now too 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:48FE:8D7E:C9C0:93B5 (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

The current colors on the map and in the legend seem to be a mess

We should probably get down to fixing it fast because it's really not a good look for Wikipedia. Dsetaerins (talk) 09:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, the map is currently a mess. Hibernian (talk) 10:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It's also outdated. The SNA has taken manbij and the areas around it, so redoing the map should be a priority Willix2025 (talk) 11:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah people on Reddit were posting the merged one yesterday and it caused confusion about who was attacking Manbij.

Manbij is in the SNA control now, they’re also attacking towards Kobani.

Al Tanf brigade holds too much on the map and HTS has more near Damascus 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:48FE:8D7E:C9C0:93B5 (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Golan heights - Syrian land

The Golan heights are shown on the map without any color indication. That area is legally part of Syria, occupied by Israel and should be shown as such. To imply the Golan is not part of Syria is very biased and plays into Israeli propaganda. Cjghib (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That's what I said. Charles Essie (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That’s right 2409:40D0:1019:31DC:BD6B:4255:19C8:4A0 (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Dier E Zor SDF command defects to HTS

Should reflect that on the map. Also makes it very obvious they hold the grey zone there 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:48FE:8D7E:C9C0:93B5 (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2024

adding and end date instead of "present" the official end date is 08 december 2024. the day of syria's libration. 31.223.127.138 (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

We need to wait a few weeks or months to see if the conflict dies down, Just because Assad and the Syrian Arab Republic has fallen, it doesn't mean that the whole Civil War has ended. If I recall the SNA has recently launched attacks against an area in the SDF which was continued after the fall of Damascus and the end of the SAR. Wakapoodiaaaa24234 (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Czello ^(music) 18:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Baathist Loyalists

https://x.com/NEDAAPOST/status/1866445588793065881 There's a group of them dug into some caves and a small town fighting off HTS. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:AD3B:BCDB:1AE:2F2B (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

X is not a reliable source, See WP:TWITTER. Theofunny (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Most of the other people are citing Livemap and Livemap draws basically everything from X 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:AD3B:BCDB:1AE:2F2B (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Which, again, is why we shouldn't have this map.

It's just not possible to reliably source an up-to-the-minute, RS-compliant war map. Wikipedia is anyway WP:NOTNEWS. FOARP (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly why Livemap is an unreliable source and therefore, should not be used. Tradedia^talk 01:05, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Golan heights, Manbij Province and Deiz ez Zor incorrectly labelled on the MAP

Golan heights should have a different colour associated with Israeli occupation like for ex, blue as per WP:NPOV because it's internationally recognised as such and is disputed, Manbij is now under the SNA and Deiz ez Zor SDF command defected to the HTS. Theofunny (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

the map is horridly out of date and behind it wasn't like this before but somebody brought back the outdated map Sanad real (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

That map was horribly wrong about Manbij and North Aleppo and we voted against merging the factions. The transitional period is supposed to end on March 1st 2025. If peace holds and that works out then when that happens we can merge them. It’s too early rn 2001:569:6FB5:12E9:C51B:FDEE:6FEC:A8D4 (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

but this map is 2 or three days behind at least Sanad real (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Then it needs to be updated. I was saying don’t revert or muck with the factions we voted and settled on this for now. I’ve even listed some specific map changes in the south east and north central areas 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:91D3:331A:88B0:14DA (talk) 08:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Deir ez-Zur is now under control of HTS/The White Faction (And other Southeastern front stuff)

After a string of pro-HTS uprisings and defections and some alleged war crimes the HTS has moved in to seize the area from the SDF.

Again, this pretty much confirms they hold the Grey area there and with the SDF falling back or defecting pretty much all of it on that side of the river.

The current map is outdated in several ways or just inaccurate as we've spent two days arguing about a template. Alongside all the other arguments made, let me simply put it this way. HTS is now fighting the SDF even if not to the same level as the SNA. The Southern Command and Revolutionary Commando Army are not fighting the SDF. The HTS and RCA/FSA are not hostile to Israel, while the Southern Command had forces attack the UN Buffer zone and is skirmishing with them. Combining all 3 is going to misrepresent their views on both these groups(Only one of the 3 is hostile to Israel, only one of the 3 is fighting the SDF), and only merging two would misrepresent at least one of them (Merging the two smaller southern groups misrepresents the Israel situation and merging one of them with HTS misrepresents the SDF situation).

Just to start with fixing this corner, the grey area and the small Kurdish pockets we have around Deir Ez-Zor are all HTS held now. The border between them and Al-Tanf brigade also needs adjustment, there is zero evidence of them taking the T3 Pump Station, Helipad, and associated town. The only way there is from Arak just north which is confirmed HTS, and the direction of HTS movements elsewhere and the initial RCA attack to Palmyra back this up. (as well as statements of ISIS attacks in the area being haulted by HTS forces).

So, on specifically the matter of the South-East, it should look something like this example piece https://imgur.com/a/syrian-civil-war-southeastern-situation-based-on-current-sources-heVQywW 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:F080:9602:9310:B809 (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

And I suggest we do this with haste so we aren't even more horribly behind. SNA is establishing a bridgehead across the river to attack SDF, and HTS has started to attack across the river towards the 7 villages(the ones that were Government held until two weeks ago). Both of them are now attacking the SDF(which is further reason not to merge them all together, the RCA and Southern Front aren't attacking the SDF. Plus those two don't agree exactly on Israel) 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:F080:9602:9310:B809 (talk) 22:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I know it's not South East, but can whoever updates these things also give the whole Manbij pocket on that side of the river to the SNA. Fixing that and fixing the void of undecided in the South East are the two big glaring things. After that we can wait a bit for sources on some of the new advances ongoing right now or get the exact borders in the Southwest figured out(the current one ain't right at all, Damascus is split differently), but that can wait. Fixing the South East and the Manbij should be priority 1. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:F080:9602:9310:B809 (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

the map is horridly out of date and behind it wasn't like this before but somebody brought back the outdated map and for some reason the new Syrian transitional government is split up on the map still waiting for people to restore the correct map from yesterday Sanad real (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

We voted against doing that. That map gave Manbij to the wrong group and also misrepresented the situation in regards to who’s aligned with who regarding both Israel and the SDF. We’re talking about this map design and template. It needs updating at Manbij and the Southeast 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:6901:3D6F:D27A:5CA9 (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Unify FSA, HTS and Southern Command into Military Operations Department as is used by many syrian news media (syriahr, syriadirecr, syrianobserver, etc.)

For example: https://syrianobserver.com/syrian-actors/opponents-demand-a-civilian-syria-after-fall-of-assad.html

SNA, SDF, and state actors should remain seperate. ISIS is a big unknown right now. 2A02:A460:301E:1:92F1:6370:F48F:2859 (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Please change the first point in the description of Civil War

The first point, Bashar al Assad is Overthrown should be changed to Bashar Al Assad is Overthrown after 13 years. 2409:40D0:1019:31DC:BD6B:4255:19C8:4A0 (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Please add one more point in description of Civil War

That Point is. SNA (Syrian National Army) launches offensive on SDF (Syrian Democratic Forces) 2409:40D0:1019:31DC:BD6B:4255:19C8:4A0 (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed! 2A02:A460:301E:1:92F1:6370:F48F:2859 (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

THIS MAP IS A MESS. OUTDATED

PLEASE CHANGE THIS MAP FAST. 2409:40D0:1019:31DC:BD6B:4255:19C8:4A0 (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete the map - There is no way of sourcing a reliable up-to-the-moment accurate war map and any attempt runs immediately in to WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues. FOARP (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you kidding us?! Just follow the live news of reliable sources like the BBC. What a lame excuse. 46.31.118.94 (talk) 12:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it possible to construct a map covering the whole of Syria based on individual reports typically sourced to videos/official statements/etc., one that's accurate for the time it's published, by collating different reports at different times from different sources according to different standards? No. The massive debate that's occurring on this page demonstrates why. FOARP (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

We werent sure before either. We can see different sources imply bigger changes, for instance see bbc: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c2ex7ek9pyeo.

What we do know:

• Israel incursions at leadt into UN buffer zone
• Opposition forces have taken Deir ez zor, pushing SDF over the Euphrates at least in that directorate.
• Manbij has fallen to SNA, pushing SDF east of Euphrates.

Also, i motion to merge Southern Operations Room, HTS and Syrian Free Army into the Military Operations Department (as is used by Syriahr.com etc.)

leaving SNA as a separate force, alongside the SDF, USA, Russia, Israel. 2A02:A460:301E:1:92F1:6370:F48F:2859 (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete the map - per FOARP. Most of the talk page is about this issue, and it would help to remove the map until things have settled down a little and we have a clearer understanding of who controls which territory. Lenovya (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
• Make the map reliable again The map should be deleted if it is not based on reliable sources, however, it is better to make it reliable as it was for many years in the past (see my comment at the section above "Military Situation Map is Inaccurate"). In any case, the map file is now protected and cannot be edited for 2 days. In the meantime, I propose we all work on the template map and make it what we want based on discussions, consensus, and reliable sources. After we are done with this and we are satisfied with it, someone will create a picture map based on copy-paste-edit the template map. That created picture map will then be posted on this article. This is how we did it for years without any problems.

We cannot keep creating maps each on his own, and then edit war to push his own map onto this article. Map creation (like everything else on Wikipedia) is a team project. The "template" framework was created to facilitate collaboration on creating a map. Tradedia^talk 19:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The "template framework" is a recipe for creating a WP:SYNTH based on unreliable sources. FOARP (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Per heavy original research problems. Ecrusized (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

HTS has reached till Dmascus

In this map it shows HTS has not yet reached Damascus. But it has reached. 2409:40D0:1019:31DC:BD6B:4255:19C8:4A0 (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Source? Did HTS tell you that? KeysofDreams (talk) 03:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh a bunch, I'll get this guy a source once the Southeast and North bits are fixed 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:F0F5:1C3F:AD52:A680 (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

See BBC 2409:40D0:22:EF57:C148:910C:1DC0:F9A1 (talk) 08:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Ending the Map Dispute

As a reader and sometimes editor of Wikipedia, I’m very much surprised that a final decision on a map hasn’t been made yet. I would suggest a temporary ceasefire in the edit war and deleting the map until an agreement can be reached. Please consider this suggestion. 206.21.104.250 (talk) 16:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Deir ez-Zor taken over by rebels

Someone might want to change the map to reflect the rebel takeover of Deir ez-Zor from PYD terrorists. 31.223.75.128 (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

They are not terrorists, but yes, unfortunately they did. Greek Rebel (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Really? Let's see, the PKK is recognized as a terrorist organization by the US, the EU, and many other countries (You can look it up). The YPG/PYD are the Syrian arm of the PKK and make up the backbone of the SDF. It follows that the SDF is a terrorist organization. Feel free to come back with a sound logical explanation for the contrary. 46.31.112.221 (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Stop changing the map

Will you stop going back-and-forth on this map? Just leave it as it is and maybe if you can get a consensus, then leave it at that. Littau Eric (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

We already voted to get a consensus. Nothing has happened since because nobody has actually edited the map. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:D835:80B7:4E9C:7C07 (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

If you wanna fix the map here's a good place to start

https://imgur.com/a/syrian-civil-war-current-map-best-understanding-least-far-better-than-prior-one-sources-are-livemap-livemap-sidebar-original-sources-bbc-cnn-isw-vsLJvfz I've gathered up data from all the credible and historically used sources and drawn some crude representations so the people who know how to update on here can do it. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:D835:80B7:4E9C:7C07 (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

How to resolve the map issue

1. Let’s have an option to show either the STG-version, the current version (with the various rebel groups), or both (similar to other maps in other articles).

2. We should NOT delete the map. I really hate that this is an idea that some are proposing: how would having no information from the map at all be better than settling on one of the maps being discussed, both of which are accurate and/or give the reader a good understanding as to who controls what? Maybe the maps need to be improved, but deleting them is a much worse alternative that is more of a quick-and-easy chicken out rather than a meaningful solution to the dispute. LordOfWalruses (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The first one is worth considering especially if things hold, but at this exact moment we voted to work with this style and the issue is simply that no one actually is updating it(adding more concepts doesn't fix that). I gathered up sources and assembled some rough guides to help above, it just needs to be done 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:D835:80B7:4E9C:7C07 (talk) 23:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Collage instead of map

After the fall of Damascus, a map is not as immediately informative or relevant as a collage. Therefore, I would support readdition of the collage with which @Chessrat replaced the map in the infobox of this article. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 22:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I would like to add that the specific images in the collage should probably be changed (specifically the one of celebrations of the fall of the regime was the only one available on Commons, but better alternatives would be good). Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

A collage of what? How exactly would this work? Because if you can’t determine who controls what at a glance, then it can’t really replace a map. Besides, how does the fall of Damascus make the map less informative/relevant than it was before?

(Also apologies if there’s a glitch or something on my end because I don’t see the replacement that you’re talking about.) LordOfWalruses (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Permalink to version being discussed, for reference: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template%3ASyrian_civil_war_infobox&diff=1262517152&oldid=1262457970

Compare to the infobox of Iraq War. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah this is absolutely not the right way forward: we need to be able to know who controls what given that Syria is still controlled by many different groups. LordOfWalruses (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support collage - The answer to the map not being reliably sourced is to use photos of the conflict, which are anyway way more illustrative than a map with a bunch of totally illegible symbols and text on it. FOARP (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  Not reliably sourced? The Wikipedia community has been working on this map for years with sources and a consensus that make sure that each change is accurate. There were even talks to verify claims made by the map whilst Assad’s regime was falling, and if you still feel like there’s an inaccuracy, then just make a talk page on it and the map can be changed.

  The map may have issues, but those issues don’t outweigh the information that the map provides, which is very legible and I don’t see any reason why it is not. Besides, what information does a photo provide other than tiny tidbits of obvious information? “Wow, the war is deadly.” “Wow, soldiers fought in the war.” “Wow, the rebels won: I totally needed a photo for that.” The map shows us what faction controls what, and there’s no way a photo collage can replace that. Besides, don’t the same issues with the map apply to the photos? How can you tell if a photo is mislabeled or fabricated?

  Sorry if this is a bit long and/or condescending. I just really dislike this idea and I don’t think solves anything at all. LordOfWalruses (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

  It definitely solves the problem of having a map generated entirely out of original research. WP:EFFORT isn't a good argument for keeping something. FOARP (talk) 10:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  By just getting rid of the information entirely instead of improving it, finding another source to verify the map, or just putting an “original research” disclaimer? Even if this map isn’t very reliable, it still provides more useful information than just a collage of photos that barely say anything about the reality of the conflict. LordOfWalruses (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  1) The information will still be hosted on Commons. It just won't be carried by EN Wikipedia.

  2) English Wikipedia is not original research. That's one of our most basic rules. If you have to label it "original research", then it's something we shouldn't have. FOARP (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  I am not saying that we should use English Wikipedia as a source, and if this map is based on original research, we can still disclaim it in the same way we do for weasel words or lack of citations. LordOfWalruses (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  When you talk about "... community has been working on this map for years with sources and a consensus that make sure that each change is accurate", you are talking about the past. Back when the map was based on the template map (which has strict rules concerning reliable sources). Today on the other hand, the map is based on liveuamap, which is an unreliable source (and that is when the map is not just updated without any source). Tradedia^talk 14:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Dude we already voted on this on both sides and unanimously voted to keep the current style of map. The issue RN is no one has actually updated it 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:D835:80B7:4E9C:7C07 (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

who participated in this vote?

Sanad real (talk) 23:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

They probably mean the Wikipedia community on this article. I think they’re right since there already has been many discussions about ditching the map and the map hasn’t been ditched (as of now). LordOfWalruses (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The Afghanistan map was ditched for the exact reason this one should be ditched: it’s original research. WP:Effort isn’t an argument for keeping something. FOARP (talk) 10:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Just because one map was ditched doesn’t mean this one should be as well, and that still doesn’t change the fact that we already had a vote about changing the map and we said no. Maybe we can do another map in a month or two if there’s a significant change in opinions or if there’s significant updates and/or unsolved problems, but trying to do another vote just to get what you want is not fair. LordOfWalruses (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Again, when these discussions about ditching the map took place, the map was based on the template map and not on liveuamap. Tradedia^talk 14:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:D835:80B7:4E9C:7C07: That vote is no longer unanimous in this section or in this one. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 13:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Nevertheless, a vote has already happened, there’s still significant opposition, and doing another vote to nullify the results of the previous vote so quickly is unfair. LordOfWalruses (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@LordOfWalruses: This vote does not nullify the results of those ones. Those votes are about whether factions in the images should be displayed as unified or as separated. This section discusses whether the image should be displayed in the infobox of this article. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 14:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:COLLAGE: Collages and montages are single images that illustrate multiple closely related concepts, where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way [emphasis added]. It is also inconsistent with WP:LEADIMAGE. What amounts to a photo essay is inconsistent with MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE - we don't try to write the article in the infobox. WP is not a picture encyclopedia. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  So you support the present map? I'm not exactly sure how a map cobbled together by editors apparently out of Twitter reports matches the requirement for high-quality sourcing in the Infobox that we've discussed elsewhere. FOARP (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

  Did I say that?. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  It's a question. You're opposing the use of collages which is an odd position, since nearly every war article on Wikipedia has such a collage (see World War I, World War II, Gulf War, Iraq War, War in Afghanistan (2001–2021), Yom Kippur War, Iran-Iraq War, Falklands War, etc. etc. etc.) based on a interpretation of a single word in WP:COLLAGE, so I have to ask what exactly it is you prefer? The present map, which is literally based on random Twitter accounts? FOARP (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  The options are not binary - map or collage. My opposition to a collage is not just based on a single word but that word is very compelling and WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments have little weight by themself. It is a matter of whether such other content represents best practice. I am seeing a growing awareness that it probably doesn't. What I prefer is a single representative image per WP:LEADIMAGE. A map is going to be the best option IMO but it doesn't have to be. There are reasonable concerns regarding sourcing for a map. Other concerns regarding currency fall to WP:NOTNEWS. I perceive some unreasonable expectations as to the degree of detail to be expected. As to whether the current map is acceptable (current as of when - it keeps changing) - I'm basically staying out of this particular shit fight (at least for now). Cinderella157 (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  When the WP:OTHERCONTENT includes probably the highest-consensus article we have, I'm pretty happy relying on WP:OTHERCONTENT. That said I'm perfectly OK with a single image as well: what needs to be gone is the map generated through WP:OR, and I agree also a WP:NOTNEWS violation. FOARP (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

  yeah and that's the problem maps are much more useful than random images Sanad real (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

So does the war count as ongoing?

I noticed civilian casualties but those are more like leftover skirmishes which are usually detailed separately in Wikipedia. Israel's invasion for a buffer state counts as a separate war by most Wikipedia precedent. I'm not making an argument here, I'm asking why do we not consider it over? There's a established government now and the SDF to my knowledge isn't attempting any major offensives, so the fighting would count as aftermath skirmishes, and I'm unaware of any media sources that describe such things as serious battles, the definition difference of which is admittedly subjective.

Nonetheless, does it count as a civil war until all sides declare it over? That's fine but we don't do that all the time using that standard. I'm fine with it being seen as ongoing, as long as we have a clear idea of when we Mark it as over and the aftermath become considered separate conflicts. I'd just like a broad idea so I know what to look for. GrandPeople44 (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Well the SDF and the SNA are still at war, so until they and all parties are at peace, then the war is still ongoing. LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

There's been ongoing conflicts like that where it's not counted as a civil war despite being a legacy of those conflicts so this isn't uniquely qualifying in comparison to precedent, but alright let's wait. GrandPeople44 (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Any examples? Because I have an idea of what you’re talking about, but since the SDF-SNA was still a part of the standard conflict, it is arguably still part of the current conflict. Maybe we could do something where we could have a “Phase 1” (3/15/11 to 12/8/24) labeled as “opposition victory” and a “Phase 2” (12/8/24 to present) be labeled as “ongoing.” LordOfWalruses (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@LordOfWalruses maybe i can do one better....

Main Phase: 3/15/11 to 2020; 11/27/24 to 12/8/24

???? Phase: 2020 to 11/26/24; 12/8/24 to present Foxy Husky (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I think three phases of the war with a “frozen period” in between the first two would work. LordOfWalruses (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@LordOfWalruses so we gonna put it as

Main Phase 1: 3/15/11 to 2020

Main Phase 2: 11/27/24 to 12/8/24

Post-main Phase: 12/8/24 to present

is that correct formula or nah? Foxy Husky (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, though a “stalemate” period (from 2020 to 11/27/24) should also be added. LordOfWalruses (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

i dont think "stalemate" period should be added into infobox dude @LordOfWalruses Foxy Husky (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Well it’s very distinct from the other phases of the conflict, so the info box should probably have at least something to mark that phase of the conflict. Maybe the “ongoing” section could have a line in the bullet point list that says something like “stalemate from 2020-11/27/24.” LordOfWalruses (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Really Wikipedia should rely on reliable sources to decide when the war is over rather than deciding for ourselves. And I think the reason why reliable sources haven't decided yet, is that it is too early to know. It has only been a week since the Assad government collapsed. Things seem mostly peaceful at the moment, but we don't know how long that mostly peaceful state will last. If it endures for a significant period, RS will likely declare the war over. If there is a massive outbreak of hostilities next week or next month (rebel infighting, Kurd vs Arab, whatever), RS may say it is continuing in a new form. Give it a few weeks to months, RS will decide and then the article can reflect their consensus decision. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

There are many RS that state that the war ended, see section End of the War on this discussion page Gehirnstein (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Please Unlock the Article

Please Unlock this article because the administrators are not doing anything. They are just sleeping. Someone12732 (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Editing is not limited to administrators; only unregistered users and users with very new accounts are unable to edit. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2024

Please change or delete the map Someone12732 (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: there is discussion ongoing about this issue further up the page. AntiDionysius (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:RS/WP:NPOV/WP:DUE in Background/Impact of natural gas section

The subsection "Impact of natural gas" contains what, in my view, are potential violations of WP:RS and WP:NPOV, most prominently WP:DUE. The idea that the Syrian Civil War was caused by the desire of the United States and associated countries to build a natural gas pipeline is, I assume, generally considered to be a relatively fringe or minority viewpoint. The section in question fails to clarify that this is the case and furthermore does not include any (more mainstream) viewpoints that suggest the contrary.

With regards to specific sourcing issues, it also appears that the section contains extensive use of sources of questionable reliability.

The first source, "Syria: Another Dirty Pipeline War" (I've linked a non-depreciated version of the article) is, I think, fairly reliable in that it is published scholarship, from the professional journal of the Hungarian military. I know very little about the state of peer review of general reliability of that journal, but have no particular reason to question it. That said, I think the article would meet the definition of an isolated study which is contrary to most scholarly opinion on the topic, while the section presents the viewpoint as a fact.

The second source, "Syria: Another Pipeline War" is from EcoWatch. Again, I don't know much if anything at all about the overall reliability of EcoWatch, but the specific article appears to be an anonymous opinion article which doesn't adhere to the standards of academic scholarship or even reliable journalism. The section in the page, again, presents the opinions contained in this anonymous article as fact.

The Washington Post article "U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show" is very much a reliable source, but I take objection to it's use in the section:

"Syrian president Bashar al-Assad declined Qatar's proposal in 2000 to build a $10 billion Qatar–Turkey pipeline through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey, allegedly prompting covert CIA operations to spark a Syrian civil war to pressure Bashar al-Assad to resign and allow a pro-American president to step in and sign off on the deal. Leaked documents have shown that in 2009, the CIA began funding and supporting opposition groups in Syria to foment a civil war."

The Washington Post article does not make any connection between the backing of opposition groups and any pipelines. Furthermore, it also does not suggest that it was the intent of the CIA to spark/foment a civil war. While this is not an unreasonable inference from the CIA's known activities, it is not something which is actually mentioned in the Washington Post article. The sourcing for this particular claim is from EcoWatch, whose problems I have already addressed.

The next paragraph begins with the sentence "Harvard Professor Mitchell A. Orenstein and George Romer stated that the pipeline feud is the true motivation behind Russia entering the war in support of Bashar al-Assad, supporting his rejection of the Qatar–Turkey pipeline and hoping to pave the way for the Iran–Iraq–Syria pipeline which would bolster Russia's allies and stimulate Iran's economy."

I don't have any issue with this sentence aside from the first source for it — the News.com.au article "Is the fight over a gas pipeline fuelling the world's bloodiest conflict?". News.com.au is essentially a tabloid, and the specific article seems to be of a tabloid level of quality. In particular, while its background assertions about the geopolitical importance of Russian natural gas supplies to Europe are backed by links to more reputable publications, its statements about the role of natural gas in the Syrian Civil War appear to be purely the result of the author's own speculations.

The author does mention the Foreign Policy article "Putin's Gas Attack", which is a reliable source, but it's not very clear what in the article is actually from this source versus the author's own opinion. In fact, "Putin's Gas Attack" is also directly cited immediately afterwards. Given that the sentence in the paragraph directly refers to this article and represents it quite accurately, I'm not even sure why the News.com.au article is needed.

Finally, "The U.S. military has set up bases near gas pipelines in Syria, purportedly to fight ISIS but perhaps also to defend their own natural gas assets, which have been allegedly targeted by Iranian militias. The Conoco gas fields have been a point of contention for United States since falling in the hands of ISIS, which were captured by American-backed Syrian Democratic Forces in 2017."

The first source is the VOA article "Iran-Backed Groups Blow Up Gas Pipeline in Syria, Monitor Says". While the neutrality of VOA may be questionable in areas relating to US foreign policy, this article in particular seems to be of a purely factual nature. In fact, it does not make any mention of the idea that the US military is in Syria to defend US natural gas assets — what it states is that "U.S.-led coalition forces, which entered Syria in 2014 to fight the Islamic State group, have set up several bases in Syria including in the Al-Omar oil field, the country's largest. They are also deployed at the Conoco gas field, and both are in Kurdish-controlled territory." In other words, there is no mention of any potential economic motivation behind the deployments, which are officially for anti-ISIS purposes.

The second source is "U.S.-backed forces capture big gas field in Syria's Deir al-Zor: senior commander", corresponding to the sentence: "The Conoco gas fields have been a point of contention for United States since falling in the hands of ISIS, which were captured by American-backed Syrian Democratic Forces in 2017." First of all, this sentence suffers from poor grammatical structure. Second of all, it doesn't appear to mean anything — what contention? The Reuters article does actually give an idea of what the contention is about — in one sentence, it states that: "While both oppose Islamic State, they [The United States and Russia] are engaged, via proxies, in a race for strategic influence and potential resources in the form of oilfields in Deir al-Zor province."

In conclusion, I think the section in question could stand to be rewritten, preferably with better sources. The role of natural gas in the Syrian Civil War, while not particularly well-discussed, is definitely something which has been the subject of serious scholarship (e.g. the Foreign Policy article) and deserves a mention, but the current state of the section is fairly poor, and quite frankly it appears to have been written by a person seeking to promote their own viewpoint on the topic.

Relatedly, the article Qatar–Turkey pipeline contains similar issues — it states that "Political scientists and journalists have postulated that the Syrian Civil War was an undercover CIA operation due to Ba'athist Syria's rejection of the pipeline proposal and its turning to an Iran–Iraq–Syria pipeline instead." with the same questionable citations to News.com.au and EcoWatch. That particular section of the article appears to have been written by the author of the problematic section in this article, and a prior version of that page espousing the same viewpoint was previously reverted for violations of WP:DUE.

StSeanSpicer (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

After doing some additional research on the matter, it appears that the basis of this entire idea, namely the existence of a Qatar-Turkey pipeline proposal and the supposed 2009 Syrian rejection thereof, is factually dubious at best. Reliable sources can at best confirm that in 2009 and 2010, there were discussions involving Qatar and Turkey about the possibility of such a pipeline. No solid evidence exists for any supposed Syrian rejection of this plan.

See: Talk:Qatar Turkey Pipeline#Factual Accuracy StSeanSpicer (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Article could be finished, war has ended

Ba'ath Government has been overthrowing. New Article may exist.

See, Afghan civil war

(1989-1992)

Najibullah/Assad government fell and new article

(1992-1996) civil war article.

New Article for creation: Syrian civil war (2024-) RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 05:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Those were made with a decade and a half of hindsight. This war could end next week, or next March, or in a year. Let’s see 2001:56A:6FD2:40DC:A9F9:ECCA:4A87:3F98 (talk) 02:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

While it's not perfect, the new map is a great place to start and I think it's the best step forward for now

Good job to whoever did that, bravo, thanks for ending that effective deadline. I'll gather up some sources to expand the map a bit, but for now, thank you. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:5FC:46A4:2010:88C5 (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The map looks good, but what’s the deal with that blue semicircle near the SFA area? I assume that’s where the American base is, but we should put that in the legend if that’s the case. LordOfWalruses (talk) 23:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It's like a protection no touching zone around the base, it's the reason the RCA survived at all they were hiding out in Al-Tanf there. (So it should probably be marked with stripy lines as it's kind of both of theres...that zone was the ONLY RCA territory on the map for years, they only broke out to Palmyra in the last week). Or just honestly give it to RCA on the map as if we split this then some of the Turkey/SNA stuff could get messy in the north....

Anyway I'm working on collecting notes and sources to reduce the amount of grey/unclear area on the map 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:5FC:46A4:2010:88C5 (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I see: thanks for the explanation. Reducing the grey area also sounds great. LordOfWalruses (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I think I'm gonna ignore the North West for now as that sector is still actively evolving, and between the SNA attacks north of Maskanah and the Raaqa defections to the HTS it might simplify itself in a grim manner.

The coast is the simplest. There are no other rebel groups that COULD get there simply due to the way things unfolded. You could mark the Russian bases or maybe that group of Baathist Loyalists held up in a cave under a farm, but the HTS is the only rebel group there to control it. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:A11B:91:DD25:46C (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I found some sources with maps that could hopefully help

• [2]
  • WSJs Map of the conflict
• [3]
  • Another Version of the map, probably the most recent and best reflection of the situation
• [4]
• [5]

Whats also could be important for the future is that the SDF started hissing the flag of the opposition in it's territories.

• [6]
  • As rebels led by Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) seized power, ousting president Bashar al-Assad, the Kurdish authorities in northeastern Syria have multiplied overtures to the new leaders, like adopting the three-starred flag used by the opposition.

Gehirnstein (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Also very grateful. The longer misinformation remains on Wikipedia, the higher of a chance it has to spread. Glad someone rectified it, even if only partially. KeysofDreams (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

That was already an issue yeah, Reddit and YouTube.

FSA should be Revolutionary Commando Army though. I think FSA is more of a generic term and the Southern Command and even the SNA have used it sometimes. The RCA was the group at Al-Tanf 2001:56A:6FD2:40DC:A9F9:ECCA:4A87:3F98 (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe the current name for the rebel group is “Syrian Free Army” (SFA), though I may be wrong on that. LordOfWalruses (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@LordOfWalruses. Yes, you are right. The rebels are named the "Free Syrian Army". (FSA). Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

The “official” name of the revolutionary commando army is the Syrian free army which is why ts called such. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes you are right. My bad. (I can't keep up with the names). Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I honestly can’t blame you for that: the group’s name has changed so many times, and it’s only one of many Syrian rebel groups. LordOfWalruses (talk) 04:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome. Kaliper1 (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.

I've tried to add what I can in suggestion with what sourcing I can in the images Discussion page. Honestly I think the old map(all factions version) more or less had the Southern Front(pink) group practically perfect, it lines up with everything I've found while digging. It just gave way way too much to the FSA(Who's eastern Border is basically perfect on the new map, they just need the grey zone between them and the Southern Front in the West filled in and their assault along the highways towards Douma marked). And the newer sources about the HTS's advance to Damascus cited in the current map are also all mostly fine, albeit they seem to disagree on the exact southern border and I think our map goes too far south(We know Douma was reached by the FSA/RCA via the highways and we know the Southern Rebels reached the southern outskirts of the city first, so Damascus should be marked with all 3 colors just like on the old map). Also Daara is Southern Front. HTS is allowed to move through and operate there similar to the old SDF/SAA agreements, but there's dozens of sources indicating their uprising took it back first, that's their home turf.

Outside of that corner, the bulk of the grey zone is pretty obviously HTS. The one Area I'd leave the Grey zone is the stretch between Raqqa and Aleppo where the SDF and SNA have skirmished and it's left the situation kind of vague, made worse by the defections. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:9D1D:61B6:2AED:6B57 (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Pruehito: Regarding your recent edit to the infobox- reliable sources describe the Southern Operations Room as being part of the HTS-led Military Operations Command. See, for example, this Guardian article- "With HTS’s help, an operations room was founded, bringing together the commanders of around 25 rebel groups in the south, who would each coordinate their fighters’ movements with one another and with HTS in the north. The goal was for HTS and its allies to approach from the north and the southern operation room from the south, both meeting in the capital city." So I'm not sure where the claim that the Southern Operations Room is somehow independent from the Syrian government is coming from. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Should we add an infobox for post Assad skirmishes and offensives

Since Assad has been overthrown a couple days ago now, should we add another infobox for the skirmishes and operations after his government's collapse? Randomuser335S (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi Protected Edit Request on December 13 2024

Please change the first point of the Status in the description of the civil war to “Bashar al Assad is ousted and flees to Russia after 13 years”. Because the Uprising began in 2011. And now it’s 2024. Assad wasn’t ousted Immediately. Someone12732 (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: "Bashar al-Assad is overthrown" is enough for now. Besides, the infobox is meant to summarize info. The article body will go into the detail of it. Also, next time when trying to edit request, please use WP:ERW so more editors will be alerted of the edit request. Cheers. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Using official names: Ayn al-Arab vs. Kobani

We're supposed to use official names. Kobani is the colloquial name for Ayn al-Arab. Heck, the district is even called Ayn al-Arab District. Consider replacing Kobani with the official name of Ayn al-Arab in updated maps. 46.31.112.221 (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: (Sorry for the late reply.) In this Wikipedia guideline article, we don't have to use the official name all the time. Sometimes, we can use its common name like in this case; Ayn al-Arab's common name is Kobani. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The blue circle on the map/unclaimed land

What is the reason for having the blue circle on the map, should it not be controlled by dark green faction like it was in older map? Also, why is there still unclaimed land on the map wasn’t all of that taken over by rebels? 2600:1702:5870:5930:187F:3142:B66B:712C (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Pretty sure that's the American presence around the Al-Tanf Base KeysofDreams (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

That sounds about right according to the key since that’s the case it should be colored dark green. 2600:1702:5870:5930:F12F:3AE6:41BA:5D72 (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2024

There is a grammar error in the title "Syrian civil war". The first letters of the words "civil war" need to be capitalized because it is the title. For example, the title should be "Syrian Civil War". 63.225.192.8 (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Per MOS:CAPS capitalisation is determined by consistent use in sources. It is not consistently capitalised in sources.

Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Map used at Template:Syrian civil war infobox

Please see subject discussion. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Legend in infobox

A recent edit (since amended) has changed the format of the legend in an attempt to group together the various groups. It is trying to capture a degree of detail for which the infobox is unsuited and which is not supported by the body of the article nor by sources cited - ie it groups Tahrir al-Sham and Southern Operations Room under Syrian transitional government. Indications are that the Syrian transitional government is an extension of the Syrian Salvation Government. While and Tahrir al-Sham and Southern Operations Room may be/have been allies in recent events It does not follow that they are part of/support the transitional government. Such a claim is not supported by the body of the article. We need to go back to the simpler representation of the legend and write detail in prose in the body of the article - not the infobox. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2024

Please change the map and make HTS and unknown and SFA controlled territory under one Syrian Transitional Government headed by Mohammed Al-Bashir 2409:40D0:103D:FB1:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Map Change

The map should be changed based on this article - sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2024/12/3/syria-tracker-maps-and-charts&ved=2ahUKEwj-p4ihyaaKAxXPqVYBHdVRCSQQyM8BKAB6BAgMEAE&usg=AOvVaw0Ft-4ppjCIv98L8TZDFC21. I don't know how to edit maps so I am requesting to someone who knows DitorWiki (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

It says page not found.78.211.200.166 (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I found some sources with maps that could maybe help.

• [7]
• [8]

Another Version of the map, probably the most recent and best reflection of the situation

• [9]
• [10]

Whats also could be important for the future is that the SDF started hissing the flag of the opposition in it's territories: [11]

• As rebels led by Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) seized power, ousting president Bashar al-Assad, the Kurdish authorities in northeastern Syria have multiplied overtures to the new leaders, like adopting the three-starred flag used by the opposition.

Gehirnstein (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

End of the War

We should rely on reliable sources to decide when the war is over rather than deciding it ourselves. Now many reliable sources state that the war is over. Its also very like the situation in Libya in 2020, the civil war was over but the Libyan Crisis continued.

• [12]
  • This marks Jolani's first public statement to an international broadcaster since the fall of the Assad regime.

"People are exhausted from war. So the country isn't ready for another one, and it's not going to get into another one," he continued.

• [13]
  • A new dawn: reflections on the end of the Syrian war

• [14]
  • The rebel sweep ends a war that killed hundreds of thousands, caused one of the biggest refugee crises of modern times and left cities bombed to rubble, countryside depopulated and the economy hollowed out by global sanctions.
• [15]
  • Syrian Rebels Rewrite History: How 13-Years Of Civil War Ended In Just 13 Days
• [16]
  • End Of Syrian Civil War: What It Means For India, Russia, Israel & America
• [17]
  • Syria’s civil war ends, new history begins - Breaking News - Aaj News
• [18]
  • Now, in the very same spot, he tells chief international correspondent Bel Trew about the years-long war – and his role in bringing it to an end
• [19]
  • Monday briefing: How the decade-long war in Syria ended almost overnight
• [20]
  • The United Nations Security Council met behind closed doors late on Monday, and diplomats said they were still in shock at how quickly Assad's overthrow unfolded over 12 days, after a 13-year civil war that was locked in stalemate for years.
• [21]
  • The United Nations Security Council met behind closed doors late on Monday, and diplomats said they were still in shock at how quickly Assad’s overthrow unfolded over 12 days, after a 13-year civil war that was locked in stalemate for years. (Two differnet sources same sentence)
• [22]
  • Rapid advances by Syrian opposition forces end a war that began with peaceful protests before spiralling out of control.

Gehirnstein (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I would agree the dates of the war should be March 15, 2011- December 8, 2024. All of the other conflicts that are related should be put into another article titled “Aftermath of the Syrian civil war”. Unless that page already exists. Also, all post-civil war related articles needed cleaned up. 2600:1702:5870:5930:0:0:0:47 (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Granted it seems like things have settled down for now, there still isn't a formal government and this could still devolve into a Libya-like situation it's to soon to say anything. Plus deciding when wars are over is not really the job of Wikipedia, that and I think that there is an internal policy on this kind of thing: "not a crystal ball" or something like that. I don't think there is anything wrong with waiting to see what happens before we say anything on this matter. 2601:406:8500:D790:8A5:2508:DE78:5C9F (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

There is still heavy fighting ongoing in the north, and several HTS fighters were just killed in an attack by pro-Assad remnants in Latakia. The war is certainly not over. You cannot say "all of the other conflicts that are related" as if this has nothing to do with the Syrian Civil War, because the conflict between the SNA and Turkey against the SDF in the north did not just begin after the civil war but was an integral part of the civil war itself. In addition, if we're going to have a subsection in the infobox for "Assad regime involvement," there shouldn't be a break between March 2020 and November 2024. While there weren't any territorial changes in the northwest, the Syrian government was still actively involved in fighting. There was repeated back and forth shelling between the opposition and the Syrian state in the northwest, and pro-Assad forces were actively involved in ground battles in other areas of the country, most notably the Daara clashes of 2021 and the Battle of Qamishli that same year. The dates for the Assad regime's participation should run continuously until December 2024. Display name 99 (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Give the Sources. Someone12732 (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

As the first sentence of this article states - "The Syrian civil war is an ongoing multi-sided conflict in Syria involving various state-sponsored and non-state actors." The Assad vs rebels conflict might have ended, as well as the ISIS vs everyone else conflict for the most part (although insurgency ongoing), but the SNA vs SDF conflict (which is one part of this multi-sided civil war) is still ongoing. EkoGraf (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

The proper government is supposed to be formed in March 2025

How about when that happened we look over the situation and how calm it's been and see if that happens before we decide when/if this war ended? That seems like a decent point to check in and decide 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:75C7:9F6F:1C89:6ED2 (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

(Not saying we'd mark it as ended then, just that's when we can review and come to a final call. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:75C7:9F6F:1C89:6ED2 (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

We can add an aftermath section. Someone12732 (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Syrian war is Over OVER! Is that true? Healing say december end is that right?

Is ti OVER?! Is it OVER!? 88.212.19.151 (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

As of right now, not yet Ulysses S. Grant III (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Syrian Civil war is over. In latest Al-Jazeera article it shows that Schools have reopened in Syria Someone12732 (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

That’s another part of the puzzle. But I agree with the other comments about waiting until later. 2600:1702:5870:5930:0:0:0:40 (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas - War is (not yet) Over! 2.30.22.205 (talk) 12:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Active Russian base in Qamishli not displayed as Russian

ISW-CTP's most recent update as of posting this displays the Russian Qamishli base as currently active. While stating that the HTS-RF agreement in the works probably won't include it if it is ratified and that other bases have been abandoned it is currently still active according to ISW-CTP.

If there is another source that states otherwise please correct me but if not can this be corrected? Smol2204 (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done - You are correct, a new update to the map has been uploaded to correct this. Thank you. Kaliper1 (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

2024 Turkey/SNA offensive against Rojava

In case anyone's searching, we have 2024 Kobani offensive for one component of the current Turkish/SNA attack on Rojava, and a deletion discussion regarding the 2024 Al-Mustariha massacre. Boud (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

War is over, write it down

Claiming that "civil war is ongoing" is just cope at this point for the Russian-Shiite axis of evil.

Whichever date Baath was deposed (Dec 8?) should mark the end. 178.253.192.224 (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Not yet there are still battles going on. 2600:1702:5870:5930:181D:1FD0:4EF:39E7 (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Source? 42.108.76.242 (talk) 10:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but is not hoping that the Syrian Civil War is over little more than wishful thinking on the part of the Neo-CONs? For, with all the Israeli bombing and terror groups still causing chaos, has not the conflict some time to go? 2.30.22.205 (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

source:

"In December 2024, the factions supported by Turkey announced they would discontinue the ceasefire with groups supported by the US, such as Syrian Democratic Forces. One news article noted: "The SNA, an umbrella of several armed factions, informed the SDF on Monday that it would be returning to 'a state of combat against us,' one of the sources briefing Al-Monitor said. The sources said negotiations between the SDF and the SNA had 'failed' and that 'significant military buildups' in areas east and west of the Kurdish town of Kobani on the Turkish border were being observed." Sm8900 (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

As the first sentence of this article states - "The Syrian civil war is an ongoing multi-sided conflict in Syria involving various state-sponsored and non-state actors." The Assad vs rebels conflict might have ended, as well as the ISIS vs everyone else conflict for the most part (although insurgency ongoing), but the SNA vs SDF conflict (which is one part of this multi-sided civil war) is still ongoing. EkoGraf (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Updating the status info

Do we know besides the Golan Heights and Eastern Syria battles. What else is going on in particular with the rebel groups? 2600:1702:5870:5930:F827:9139:1D2B:5CD2 (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

In December 2024, the factions supported by Turkey announced they would discontinue the ceasefire with groups supported by the US, such as Syrian Democratic Forces. One news article noted: "The SNA, an umbrella of several armed factions, informed the SDF on Monday that it would be returning to 'a state of combat against us,' one of the sources briefing Al-Monitor said. The sources said negotiations between the SDF and the SNA had 'failed' and that 'significant military buildups' in areas east and west of the Kurdish town of Kobani on the Turkish border were being observed." Sm8900 (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

References

SDF-controlled area should NOT be marked with “and American occupation”

Yes, US forces have assisted the SDF, but that’s mostly with coordinated operations against ISIS rather than any attempt to hold onto territory long-term. As such, this area should not be marked partially as “American occupation,” especially given how wide of an area (not under American occupation) that term describes. LordOfWalruses (talk) 14:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Some parts of Kobani are de facto occupied by the international coalition Waleed (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Well shouldn’t we have a (slightly) different color to mark those parts (separate from the rest of Rojava territory)? LordOfWalruses (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Qamishli Helicopter base has been evacuated by the Russians

As of the most recent report by ISW-CTP Qamishli Helicopter base has been evacuated. Shown as still occupied by Russia in the Wikipedia version. Smol2204 (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)