Talk:Syrian civil war/North Korea

Military infobox and civil infobox

I have created a military infobox to go with the rename. For the moment, I Have kept the civil box right under the new box. Should the civil box be removed completely or kept at this place?--Maldonado91 (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the civil box should be removed. This has evolved into an armed conflict with only a few civilian aspects left. EkoGraf (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I Agree with EkoGraf because the opposition's fighters are mostly composed of civilians and 85,000 Army Defectors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinxeAdun (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Syrian map of the Arab spring Should be changed into red and must have an ongoing civil war legend — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinxeAdun (talk • contribs) 12:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that there should be only one info box without speculation about alliances or foreign support. Turkish airplane is not opposition airplane, it is incident probably connected with Syrian internal conflict, but we don't have reliable information about this connection.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 13:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Still...the Turks are turning a blind eye to the shipment of arms and fighters over their border to the rebels. And are housing and guarding the rebels military command. EkoGraf (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that Turkey support opposition in Syria, but one incident does not mean that Turkey attack Syria or that these two countries are in war as infobox suggest. In infobox it seems that there are some huge war in Middle East (Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Qatar, Syria etc).--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think we should wait until this title dispute is over. An "uprising" usually indicates a group of rebels against an already implemented army. If the title stays as "Civil War", then we can change to a military conflict infobox. -- Luke (Talk) 15:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's military infobox is not just for wars, but also for armed uprisings, in essence for any armed conflict. If you don't believe me check it. Dozens of articles on decades old border conflicts like the Cambodia-Thailand row also uses the military infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The dispute is over by consensus process I think. To answer Vojvodae, the fund and support category make it clear that there is no "huge war in middle east" --Maldonado91 (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

For me problem is not military infobox but content of it. If you one border incident describe as combat lose it seem that Turkey is in war with Syria what is not truth. I don't have problem with type of infobox but I think that we must be more careful when write articles about current events.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 17:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the {{Infobox military conflict}} since the article was moved back to original title. -- Luke (Talk) 02:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, your reason is not logical Luk3, military conflict infoboxes are used for uprisings as well cause they are also of an armed nature. EkoGraf (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like bloody mess. I shall keep my hands away from it for at least week to see what consensus will be established, but IMO Funded and supported states should be removed, otherwise you can easily add UK, France and USA to opposition side (all admit to sending non-lethal equipment) and Russia, North Korea and China on government side. Result is that you just invented third world war. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes and before I forgett, same goes for foreigner fighters part. Journalists which were in Syria all, to one, claim to have never seen any foreign fighter. It is certain that there are some, but their number is low, up to point of irrelevancy. After all, IRGC commander confirmed that he sent his soldiers there, yet we are not adding foreign fighters to government section. Beside nearly all conflicts involved foreign fighters in one way or another, there were Egyptians and Tunisians fighting on the rebel side in Libya, while Malians, Nigerians and others on Gaddafi side. As for Fatah al-Islam, 30 bloody fighters is nowhere near notable. That number of soldiers and rebels is killed on daily basis. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Saying that journalists who went to Syria never saw foreign fighters is incorrect. Just recently a number of news articles have emerged about the foreign fighter presence in Syria, most Lebanese but also others. There was an article about 300 Lebanese FSA fighters training just over the border. And the Washington post has put out a number of 500-900 foreign rebels overall being in Syria, source is in the infobox. That is not a small number. Also, most of the major suicide car bomb attacks have by this point been confirmed to be the work of the Al Nusra front, which is mainly comprised of foreigners, thus their presence is notable. EkoGraf (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not incorrect, I formulated my sentence because I knew that someone will pull this. Those reports are based on government and intelligence sources which are reliable, but my point about journalist not witnessing them stands. As for al-Nusra, I don´t know where you found out that they are mostly foreign, I saw no such report. 500 foreigners are 2 military companies, not that much given that we are talking about fighting force that is able to battle military organization that had prior to this conflict 300,000 professional soldiers in their service for almost a year and is gaining ground, instead of loosing. 300 Lebanese from Bekka valley - although foreigner we may take into consideration that clans and families from Bekka valley extend to both part of borders, similiary to Deir ez-Zor where Iraqi sunni tribes are smuggling weapons because their offshot tribe joined armed opposition on other side of border. IRGC and Hezbollah are also foreigner had their combined presence be 500 men it is not even noticable. Syrian army fields that much soldiers to small villages with not significant rebel presence sometimes, their numbers in large battleground as Homs counts in tens of thousands. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I somehow over-fought my own laziness and managed to read the reference to foreign fighters. I shall present few snaps from that material

Although no reliable data is available regarding the number of foreign fighters in Syria, many sources have discussed their presence.

It is worth noting that the Assad regime has identified only around forty individuals as jihadists, according to a list Damascus sent to the UN in May.

Lebanese group Fatah al-Islam and the multinational Abdullah Azzam Brigades have also crossed into Syria; they are not fighting under those banners, however, but simply as "mujahedin." this is pretty nice quote regarding my previous questions about needlessness of having Fatah al-Islam in the infobox

French media reported in December that a Libyan detachment led by Abd al-Mehdi al-Harati -- a close associate of Abdul Hakim Belhaj, former leader of the defunct Libyan Islamic Fighting Group -- had joined the conflict. al-Harati is not close associate of Belhadj, for Christ sake. Belhadj was commander of Derna militia, Harati of Tripoli militia. They fought together during battle of Tripoli, but Harati was Irish-Libyan who never met him. Seriously, stupid wikipedian knows more than guys who get paid for this stuff </endoftherant>

There is no hard evidence that the homegrown jihadist group Jabhat al-Nusra has recruited foreign fighters, but at least some of them have likely connected with the movement. regarding what you said

Although the trickle of foreign fighters into Syria seems to have picked up in recent months, they still comprise a very small portion of those battling the Assad regime. Any verified evidence of such fighters no doubt plays into Assad's rhetoric, but he has grossly exaggerated a small phenomenon -- all estimates indicate that well over 90 percent of the fighters are Syrian and non-jihadist.

foreign fighters in Syria have yet to have a known force-multiplying effect on the level seen in Iraq

TL;DR the source itself says that their presence is nowhere near significance of Afghanistan or Iraq (where those chaps are included), source also says that those 30 (!) Fatah al-Islam fighters are not operating under group flag and also says that al-Nusra is domestic, not foreign. So let´s remove those foreign fighters and Fatah al-Islam together with unverified claims about casualties of Hezbollah or whatnot. Shall we? EllsworthSK (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, there is here for 4 days, arguments are pretty strong and don´t say they are not as source which you used as reference says that presence of foreign fighters is not notable while FaI is not fighting under banner of FaI. If no one has anything against it, I shall be removing it. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The Washington post source at the same time confirms that 10 percent of the FSA fighters are foreign. They even cite a number of 500-900. That is not a small number and their role in the conflict has been talked about at length in many recent articles. Yes, Fatah al-Islam's group was estimated to be just 30 back in March-April and that is not much. However, recently there was an article that stated almost all of the Lebanese fighters joining the FSA are under the overall command of Fatah. And the Lebanese are estimated to be around 300 and rising. Also, the presence of Fatah is notable given they were the main instigator of the Lebanese conflict from 2007 so are thus a Lebanese player. Overall the presence of the foreigners, though still only estimated to be 10 percent of the rebels, is still highly notable. It's being mentioned constantly in the media as being the main fear of not just the various governments who barely support the rebels but of the rebels themselves. Just today there was a CNN report in which an FSA commander confirmed the foreign presence is still small but that he is highly concerned that their numbers are rising. So the foreigners are a combatant in the conflict however you look at it. EkoGraf (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Eko, I already reacted on it in the first post. Their role in the conflict has been indeed discussed extensively, but pinpoint me where do those sources state that they play significant role in the conflict. Most sources talk about these fighters because of fears of Syria becoming hotbed for them as Iraq or Afghanistan. Once again, see quotes above which says that so far they are not significant enough to be put on level of, once again, Iraq or Afghanistan. By placing them to infobox, which is reserved for notable participants in the conflict, we are giving them on same as level as Syrian security forces (military and paramilitary - meaning Shabiha) and FSA. That goes against WP:DUE. Or let´s take Libyan civil war as an example, one MiG-23 which was downed by rebels near Ras Lanuf was flown by Libyan and Syrian pilot. Should we add Syria as participant in the conflict because of that (they already did so on Russian wiki for reasons unknown to me)? Or Yemeni revolution where foreign fighters (Somalians from al-Shabaab and Arab fighters) operating under flag of Ansar al-Sharia and AQAP played significant actual role in the conflict (took control of nearly 2 provinces and were used as bargaining chip by Ali Abdullah Saleh)? Maybe better example would be Iraqi war, where role of PMCs (as Blackwater) was extremely, extensively discussed by all media, Arabs are using it up until today, together with Abu Ghraib, as rallying cry against United States, despite being only several hundred strong in numbers and only few dozens even got under enemy fire? No because that would make infobox unbalanced.

As for Fatah al-Islam, that is Palestinian group. Based in Lebanese refugee camps, but Palestinian (under 1969 agreement these camps are completely autonomous and state security forces cannot enter them. Lebanese government was simply in 07 fed up with them and went in anyway). Please give me that article which says that Lebanese (from Bekka valley which have tribial and clan connections with Syrians on the other side of the border) are under Fatah al-Islam command, because that is ridiculous. Also there were clashes in Tripoli several times in last year, as you surely know. None of them included Fatah al-Islam. Plus source above states that they are not operating under flag of Fatah al-Islam. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

If you would check the Iraq war article you would see that the contractors are in the infobox there and their number was in fact 6,000-7,000 and not just several hundred as you say. Also, I disagree that only a few dozen were under enemy fire. The Iraq infobox clearly lists more than 1,500 to have died in the war. Let me get right down to it. The foreign fighters are there, they are almost a thousand strong and the number is rising, they operate only nominally under the FSA (who don't want to have anything to do with them and are thus basically separate from them), they are talked about in the media at least once a week if not more, and the foreign guys are behind several of the mass suicide bombings which have been reported on extensively (confirmed on at least one occasion by the UN chief Ban Ki Mun). All that fits the criteria of notability. And everything is properly referenced with reliable sources. Notability and verifiability, prime principles of Wikipedia. I don't see how it causes the infobox to be unbalanced. I will try to look up that source you requested, but it was almost a month since I read that article. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I did and they are enlisted in casualties, not as combatants. Also most of those casualties were killed by IEDs, not during armed clashes as majority of contractors were of non-military nature. And let me react from the end. Suicide bombings were claimed by Nusra. Nusra, as above source says, are local jihadists. Not foreign. Next, media talk about them out of fear of becoming something more - hotbed for them as in Iraq, but do not overestimate their presence which is marginal as, once again, source above clearly states. Bytheway those 300 Lebanese operate in Homs under FSA banner and under FSA command, jihadists from Iraq and other MENA regions tend to operate separately. In the end I noted that you did not react on Fatah al-Islam. Should I take it as your agreement for its removal? EllsworthSK (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

DPRK and Syria sign MOU and agreements.

From Central News Agency, DPRK. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lqB8HUHUTY&feature=g-u-u — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.237.122.122 (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

North Korea is already mentioned in the Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war article. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

North Korea and Iran (twice) in the infobox

Iran is already mentioned prominently in the regime's section, so why mention it a second time under "Armament support"?
North Korea's role consists mostly of military advising which is not as notable as Tehrik-i-Taliban for example, who established their own training camps with hundreds of fighters on ground. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol, North Korea is in, but Israel isn't? Slightly ridiculous. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Like PLNR said, Israel is targeting Hezbollah in particular. And this is mainly part of the wider Iran-Israel proxy conflict, not this one. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

North Korean involvement

There is already quite enough evidence for North Korean military personnel fighting alongside Syrian troops. Maybe include them alongside Russia, Iran and Hezbollah ? - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 21:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC) This page has some good text already. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War Washington Post has an article too today. Legacypac (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I meant in the infobox. Currently they are listed under "Support", while they should be listed as an active belligerent. - ☣Tourbillon ^A ? 22:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

North Korea

• Comment - if a semi-belligerent like Israel isn't going into the infobox, countries like North Korea, which have comparativley no role, should be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • North Korea should not be there. At best they may be a weapons vendor, but they will sell arms to anyone with cash. . Legacypac (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree - North Korea is not a notable supporter of belligerent.GreyShark (dibra) 15:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree to remove North Korea - It is not a vocal supporter of the Syrian Government--Opdire657 (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Hummm I went and looked and found sources listed in the infobox saying North Korea has two special forces battalions fighting in Syria plus "thousands" of missile and weapons experts. They are also an arms supplier. If the sources are correct, North Korea is a flat out belligerent with boots on the ground, not just a supporter. What think you? Should we post up the sources and debate them? Legacypac (talk) 18:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like propaganda BS. If North Korea had forces on the ground, it would be all over the news. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

It sounds extremely awkward to me, even though some sources state such claims. By the way, having advisors on the ground is still considered support not belligerency.GreyShark (dibra) 16:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

China?

According to this: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/china-enters-fray-in-syria-on-bashar-al-assad-s-side-1.2764979

and other news, China now promises limited non-interventionist support for the Syrian government. Should we add China under "Support" alongside Iraq and North Korea now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BountyFlamor (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:CRYSTALBALL.GreyShark (dibra) 19:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Erm, a literal announcement of support by official state organs is about as far from crystaballism as you can get. My only reservation is the extent to which this includes military cooperation — China is being coy about this, so it's best to wait until this is confirmed. (Although I'm always amazed at the shifting standards of evidence; Cuba and North Korea persisted in the Infobox on the strength of sheer tabloid journalism until very recently). Albrecht (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I support the North Syria Federation. Should you add me to the infobox? Now seriously, declartational support is not eligible to be included in the infobox. We need some solid evidence for Chinese actual physical support, otherwise those are just empty words, stated already by multiple countries.GreyShark (dibra) 17:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Your support may consist of "empty words," China's does not: "Chinese military advisers are on the ground in Syria helping train soldiers in the use of weapons purchased from China, including sniper rifles, rocket launchers and machine guns, reported the Global Times, which is published by the ruling Communist Party's flagship newspaper People's Daily." Albrecht (talk) 01:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Good point - seems like it is a valid source to justify Chinese inclusion as supporter of Ba'athist Syrian Republic.GreyShark (dibra) 20:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Support in the Security Council isn't empty words. By the way, there is some evidence for North Korea involvement:[1][2].--Jack Upland (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

These sources cite "a representative of a Syrian opposition delegation" and the notorious "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights"; hardly convincing or compelling testimony. One source admits that "there [have] been [no] concrete examples of North Korean soldiers fighting in the ongoing civil war" and that "the evidence is not conclusive." The evidence for a pre-existing military relationship is much more concrete, but it's important to distinguish this from active support in the SCW. I'd like to see some more-or-less independent confirmation of these 10-15 Arabic-speaking DPRK 'advisors.' Albrecht (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

You're right about SOHR being notorious, even its article here on Wikipedia is recently made notoriously biased. Some better refs for Chinas emerging involvement must exist. SaintAviator lets talk 23:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The difference is that the North Koreans are alleged to be there by (unreliable) third parties, without any proof; the Chinese have themselves announced the presence of their advisors. If these advisors are sufficient to be listed as a supporter, then I could agree to the inclusion of China. Albrecht (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree. SaintAviator lets talk 22:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

North Korea

Some IP user tried to add North Korea to the infobox, despite previous discussion to comment it out. So far the North Korean alleged involvement has only been proposed by rumors, with no official approval of neither North Korea nor Syrian Arab Republic. We need very strong sources to justify listing North Korea in the box and it should be notable and verifiable.GreyShark (dibra) 07:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Upland, Albrecht, and SaintAviator: your opinion is welcome (participants of August 2016 discussion).GreyShark (dibra) 07:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Also @BountyFlamor:.GreyShark (dibra) 07:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Legacypac, FunkMonk, and Opdire657: - participants of May 2016 discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 07:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

There's not enough to justify listing it here. The reports of North Korean troops are now months old. If the story was true I would expect some follow-up. North Korea is, however, mentioned in Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War, and I think this is appropriate.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Rumours are not enough for inclusion. FunkMonk (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
• As per above (and my own previous statements), there needs to be a higher burden of proof than "so-and-so said." There's also a difference, I will observe, between a pre-existing (commercial) military relationship and "support" in the context of the SCW. Albrecht (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

If North Korea was really supplying troops to Syria that would be big news, and until then its just a rumor. Legacypac (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

North Korea military involvement

In 2016, there were reports that DPRK troops were fighting to defend the Syrian government in the Syrian Civil War. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/03/25/are-north-koreans-fighting-in-syria-its-not-as-far-fetched-as-it-sounds/?utm_term=.c6de84dac035 AHC300 (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The source doesn't indicate Korean involvement, but rather offers a theory. This is not WP:NOTABLE.GreyShark (dibra) 16:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

And of course this is WP:RSOPINION, not a fact.GreyShark (dibra) 06:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

China and North Korea

With another edit-warring over the inclusion of China and North Korea in the infobox, i've created talk:Syrian Civil War/North Korea (so far no consensus to include North Korea as belligerent nor supporter), whereas concerning China - i'm under the impression that the recent discussion was in favor of its inclusion (see 2016 discussion). If there are different opinions on China, let's discuss.GreyShark (dibra) 11:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Greyshark09:" Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources", so just a visit by a Chinese admiral is no enough for including china in the support list of Syrian government, if political support is a reason for including countries in a list, then Venezuela should be included as well. If North Korea and China really supported Syrian government militarily, then it would be a big news, now just some small articles. Nochyyy (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Obviously i agree with you that a visit by an admiral is not a support; support has clearly to be one of the following: military support (training, advisors, weapons) and/or logistic support (arms sales during the conflict, or financing such arms sales). According to AP: "Despite that, Chinese military advisers are on the ground in Syria helping train soldiers in the use of weapons purchased from China, including sniper rifles, rocket launchers and machine guns, reported the Global Times, which is published by the ruling Communist Party’s flagship newspaper People’s Daily." This in my opinion could warrant inclusion of China as supporter.GreyShark (dibra) 10:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I found the Global Times article [3], it is stating that "Many contracts were signed before the Syrian civil war, but due to the unstable situation, many couldn't be fulfilled in the past few years" It is a very weak military support and many of the contracts is not being implemented due to civil war, the current limited training is due to pre-civil war contracts. My point is that Chinese support is so weak (Article says it too) that we can't count China as a major player in supporting Syrian government from military point of view. Nochyyy (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a major supporter, but if they sell weapons and send advisors and instructors to Syria - it could well warrant support. Let's hear more opinions on this topic.GreyShark (dibra) 11:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The provision of lethal weapons and military advisers on the ground is about the most concrete textbook definition of "support" you can find. Any more than that would make China an active belligerent in the conflict, so the notion of "very weak [vs., presumably, 'strong'] military support" holds no water. Beyond that, it's absolutely not self-evident to me why Chinese support — in a global proxy war defined by complex and shifting alliances — would be a case of WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Albrecht (talk) 12:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

China is not implementing many pre-war contracts due to civil war and in the source it is stated that China does not want the wrath of Arab states, so it is keeping a low-profile in regards to the Syrian conflict. Also, China almost is never mentioned in the mainstream media as a supporter of Assad government, it is not included in any peace talks, no western governments asked china to stop supporting Assad. Also, if China should be added, then Israel should be included in the support list of rebels as well, since Israel has actively supported rebels in many instances and bombed Hezbollah and Syrian government. Nochyyy (talk) 13:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

China keeping a low profile — as it tends to do in all diplomatic/geopolitical engagements outside the Asia-Pacific — and China providing military-technical support to the Syrian Arab Republic are not mutually exclusive. Mainstream media discourse, participation in the peace process, the (lack of) reactions from foreign governments: all these are immaterial to the question of whether China has provided military assistance to the SAR, which, per WP:SOURCEs, it has. Incidentally, I agree re. Israel, but that too is immaterial to the discussion at hand. Albrecht (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that there is a lack of sources for Chinese support for Syrian regime, there is only one article that claims there are some Chinese military advisers in Syria. The magnitude of support is important, there could be only 10 Chinese adviser there, is it considered supporting government in a large scale civil war? Nochyyy (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there isn't anything close to a lack of sources: see The Telegraph, Reuters, The National Interest, etc. Note that these publications unambiguously use the words "support" and "military cooperation." There are also many other aspects to Beijing's support: humanitarian assistance, economic (credit, etc.), diplomatic; but, to avoid endlessly hairsplitting, the criteria we use are the provision of lethal weapons and (non-combat) military personnel. Since there are only a handful of countries providing this (Russia, Iran, Iraq, China, and possibly Egypt) to a relatively isolated state, why not list them? Albrecht (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - @BountyFlamor, Albrecht, Jack Upland, and SaintAviator: users who participated in 2016 discussion.GreyShark (dibra) 11:31, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The Reuters article emphasizes how little the Chinese are involved - specifically less than the other permanent security council members. The "training" appears to be the kind of drills many countries do together. Weapons sales are not significant. Ya, China is at best a friend to Syria. Legacypac (talk) 06:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

This is, stricto sensu, wrong: dispatching military personnel to help train the army of a country engaged in a war is a hugely significant show of support—in fact, the very definition of "support" this article has been using. It is not at all "the kind of drills many countries do together" (and in any case, countries that engage in high-level military exercises tend to be bound by formal military alliances—the "support" there is already implied). Whether this support matches the level of support given by certain other entities to certain other actors in this conflict (which, anyway, would be hard to measure) is not relevant. Albrecht (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

All these articles states that China does not want involvement in syrian crisis, wkae the national interest article "Beijing’s engagements have been fairly limited, and mostly focused on attempts from the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs to insert itself into peace negotiations and occasional expressions of concern around individual nationals who appear on the battlefield". Reuters article only mention "humanitarian assistance" and "China has shown no interest in getting involved militarily in Syria". All these indicate that China should not be included in the list of Assad supporters. Nochyyy (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Note the past tense—"have been fairly limited"; i.e. a reality which is shifting. The rest of your comment involves subjective interpretations of statements cherry-picked to bolster your case, not a discussion of the real criteria used to determine military support: the dispatching of weaponry and military advisors. Albrecht (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

"have been" only reflects that the newspaper reports what happened and does not predict the future. Legacypac (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Consider Invasion of Poland, France and UK are not included in the supporting list of Poland due to "very limited" assistance. Here, we have a similar case. At best case, we can include China in a footnote. Nochyyy (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Good point — but not, I think, the one you wanted to make: if France and Britain had provided lethal weaponry and in situ advisors to train the Polish army, they surely would be listed as supporters (cf. Polish–Soviet War). Legacypac, these reports are obviously not predicting the future, but rather reporting on the present as it compares to the past. If there had been no change in China's level of involvement, there would, strictly speaking, be nothing on which to report. Albrecht (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

France even launched Saar Offensive to assist Poland, UK blockaded German ports (Blockade of Germany (1939–45)). But as these actions were "limited", thus they are not listed as supporters of Poland. France and UK had military alliance with Poland, while China only has "very limited" military cooperation with Syria. Nochyyy (talk) 07:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

This is getting widely off-topic, but the Saar Offensive was obviously outside the Polish theatre of operations, and therefore not considered within scope of the September Campaign: otherwise, France would be listed, not merely as a supporter, but as a belligerent. Please, don't be silly.

The bottom line is this: the supply of lethal weaponry + military advisors to a participant in a conflict is the widely-used barometer of "support." China meets these conditions. So far, all the objections have been based on ad-hoc subjective ideas of what, ideally, "support" should consist of. But you can't cherry-pick and apply your own standards to pet articles: if lethal weaponry + military advisors does not indicate support, then all supporters would have to be reevaluated and vetted across the board. Albrecht (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I just try to have a logical conversation here, you can not insult people if you disagree with them and don't behave high and mighty because Wikipedia does not belong to you, so you cannot decide when a conversation is over. Saar Offensive was launched to distract German troops in Poland, do not twist the reality. The limited factor comes to play there. Nochyyy (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's nothing in this comment relevant to the topic, or with which I can usefully engage. If you want to make a case for why the supply of lethal weaponry + military advisors on the ground does not equal support, please do so clearly. Albrecht (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)