Talk:Syrian civil war

Archives
Topical archives
Israel in the infobox DRN Kurds in the infobox Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Syrian civil war

Provided evidence of the support of the Turkish military forces (for artillery fire large caliber) and the purchase oil off the terrorists.)

Provided evidence of the support of the Turkish military forces (for artillery fire large caliber) and the purchase oil off the terrorists.)

Jump up ^ https://russian.rt.com/article/145541 Jump up ^ http://lifenews.ru/news/182947 Jump up ^ http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/1579521/video/

References

Turkmens can be showed as an entity like YPG and YPJ on infobox

With the recent advancements on Turkish border (liberation of 20 Turkmen villages and Çobanbey town and border crossing) and in Aleppo (gaining of a vicinity from YPG) by Syrian Turkmen Brigades of the Syrian Turkmen Assembly (part of Syrian Opposition), I think Syrian Turkmen Brigades can be showed on the infobox. Sputnik, Anadolu Agency, Haber7, Al Jazeera

Turkmens, Syrian Turkmen Assembly and Syrian Turkmen Brigades "must" be mentioned in the Syrian Opposition part since they are currently the driving opposition force in North Aleppo and center of the Turkey's Syria policy. - Berkaysnklf (talk) 7 April 2016, 18:12 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.75.198.117 (talk)

Title Change?

Why? Because it's not a civil war. I have no ideas for a title, I just cannot comprehend how "civil war" sufficiently describes the conflict. There are multiple state actors involved, the entire conflict was engineered from the outside, and therefore it cannot possibly be described as an internal conflict. I would really like to see Wikipedia set a proper example here, unlike the BBC for example who are obsessed with palming all blame onto Syria in and of itself, and instead tell it how it really is. This is a full-scale proxy war and it ought to be labelled as such. Mere Mortal (talk) 00:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Civil wars always involve foreign interventions. Could you even name a modern civil war that does not involve foreign states? There is no rule that says foreign states cannot participate in civil wars at all. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This article made me totally lose my faith on Wikipedia. Must be one of the most biased articles ever written. It's clearly pro-US and pro-Israel if you could put a label on it. Shame on the editors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:D47:2EC7:9300:7C9F:5C61:8023:848D (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME applies and the title is generally accurate MarkiPoli (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Mere Mortal. Google the term and read the very first definition. Beingsshepherd (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

The UN ICRC has changed conflict status in Syria from Civil war to "International Armed Conflict". [2]

I guess it's a good sign that the title should be changed? --WikiNameBaks (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

If the title does change, please update the MiszaBot/config so archiving may continue.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 07:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above comment, simply due to definition alone and wikipedia trying its best to gather FACT or factual statements, as much as possible. The problem with the term "civil war" refers to an inner-conflict. However had, we know various examples of where FOREIGN fighters are also partaking within Syria, on all involved sides. While I do not doubt that there is inner-syrian conflict as such, I heavily doubt that the conflict is as one-sided as wikipedia currently insinuates with the "civil war" comment. I think we'd need to find some other term... perhaps not solely civil but a hybrid war. We don't know who all supports who since information is largely shielded from the general public in most countries. 2A02:8388:1641:4700:BE5F:F4FF:FECD:7CB2 (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It is a civil war because all sides are fighting over the same country. It is not war between countries where country A attacks country B although the US missile strike starts to border on that, but because the US strike was limited it is more a military action than a war. Legacypac (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not not not a civil war. Not. [3]. Its a Middle East wide conflict between countries. Turkey attacks Syria. Israel attacks Syria. US invades Syria illegally. Over 100,000 Iranian forces are in Syria by invitation. Iraqi militias are there. Hezbollahs army. Saudi ilitary advisors, illegally. Special forces from all over Europe. Russians. Arabs from all over. Isis. Al Qaeda. Afgani Shites. etc. The fighting and beligerents are also in Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Golan Heights, Lebanon, Turkey. (PKK). The real kicker is not international intervention after the start but international intervention started it. Wikipedias editors as a whole are too stuck in the mud, too unbold, too biased, too conservative, to look in to this or change the name from this very very inadequate title. Its the wrong name, btw. SaintAviator lets talk 07:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

• As has been mentioned a gazillion times before, all other civil wars in history have had foreign actors. The last war most similar to this one is the Lebanese civil war (though on a smaller scale). FunkMonk (talk) 08:42, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Anything short of a move request discussion here isn't going to lead to a title change as this is a controversial move. I tried to close the discussion here asking nicely that the arguments that have already been presented be looked at. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Early insurgency

I created the Early insurgency phase of the Syrian Civil War sub-article, similar to the long-existing Civil uprising phase of the Syrian Civil War article. As a result i tweaked the content in this main Syrian Civil War article on early insurgency, keeping only the abstract and creating link to the main article. This reduced the main article by more than 15k.GreyShark (dibra) 14:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@FutureTrillionaire, Corriebertus, Charles Essie, IRISZOOM, and EkoGraf: for your reference and attention.GreyShark (dibra) 14:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: I like it. :) EkoGraf (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Uh, the article makes it seem like the opposition was magically peaceful until the formation of the FSA in July, which is simply false. There was no mention of the June 2011 Jisr ash-Shugur operation, which left at least 120 security personnel dead, so there were clearly armed insurgents very early on. FunkMonk (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Monk, i do not object your point. There was no single point of time when protests transformed into armed insurgency - protests lasted from March to August 2011, while insurrection began as early as June 2011. It was however agreed that Civil Uprising phase encompasses March-July 2011 and that FSA formation marks the organized insurgency phase. It doesn't mean there was no armed insurrection in civil uprising (many security personnel were killed by weapons obviously), but it means that the main course until July was civil uprising, and from 29 July it increasingly was marked by organized rebel activity.GreyShark (dibra) 18:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, but the scope of the article is the insurgency in general, not FSA or organised insurgency specifically. FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

the opposition wasn't responsible for jisr alshaghour,who attacked the soldiers were defectors,nothing to do with the protesters.Alhanuty (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

If this was widely accepted fact, I doubt there would be so many different versions of the events. For a long time, the opposition even claimed the soldiers had been killed for defecting. So the different stories don't add up. FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

which is true,Soldiers who defected were killed,plus we can't rely on pro-regime sana for the events.Alhanuty (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

That is two mutually exclusive theories you have mentioned in a row, both obviously cannot be true. Furthermore, the cited sources are western, not Sana. --FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

those are not theories,those are events that occurred,Protests were peaceful.Alhanuty (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Your first comment says the soldiers were killed by defected soldiers. Then you said the defected soldiers were the ones who got killed. Maybe your wording is just very unclear and I misunderstand it, but both statements cannot be true. --FunkMonk (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I mean that defected soldiers who can escape were killed by regime forces in daraa 2011 until late 2011.Alhanuty (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

In any case, that is of course not the only version of the events. FunkMonk (talk) 01:22, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Belligerents Infobox

Why does the infobox say the US is supporting Rojava and not Islamist rebels? During Aleppo battle it was supporting rebels who were actively fighting the Kurds. This looks like misinformation to me. Asilah1981 (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

probably because some editors are still trying to limit the facts coming out about US supplies to Jihadists SaintAviator lets talk 22:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The US is listed as a supporter of the rebels in the infobox. Although significantly more support is given to the SDF, the US supports both the SDF and some FSA groups. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I said Jihadists. Even more specfically Salafi jihadism many of whom are in Al-Qaeda who allegedly did 9/11. Not just in Operation Cyclone but recently too SaintAviator lets talk 07:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox problems

The infobox is strangling the article. Both the lead and toc are sandwiched into the left-hand corner, and it's impossible to read with any comfort. I don't even dare try to check it on my mobile. I suggest a rethink of the presentation in order to get the article under control. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Correct. SaintAviator lets talk 22:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

It looks pretty ridiculous on mobile. The lead can barely fit three words to a line. Here's what it looks like in Safari on an iPhone 6. Lizard (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah its a contaminated monster. Due to its size it needs to be under the lead. SaintAviator lets talk 05:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

The main purpose of an infobox is (or should be) to highlight major points of the article, not to try to cram into it as much of the article as possible. Actually, I'd be willing to bet half of what appears in the infobox doesn't actually appear anywhere else in the article. Is there any way the infobox can be condensed/reduced while remaining neutral and not pissing anyone off? I'm not confident on the latter, but the former should be possible. Lizard (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Imagine the hassle and discussion. Lol. Thing is we have not had a war like this one for a long time. Nothing like it since WW2. Its more complex than Vietnam, Korea in the 50's, Iraqi twice, Afghanistan, all the pissant wars. The info box probably does not even truly reflect the complexity. I know the article does not. So I think we are stuck with it. It views OK on a PC, not phones. A workaround may be arranging the info box under the lead. SaintAviator lets talk 22:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead issues

When you read the lead imaginning you are someone who is on the net trying to understand the so called Syrian Civil War, (once they get past the strangling infobox) you can see the lead snapshot is missing a key ingredient. Who arms the Non Syrian Govt side? Who is supplying the huge amount of weapons / logistics to sustain all these various opposing and infighting rebel / Jihadist forces thruoght this protracted conflict? This is the key thing. 'Without Arab Gulf states, Saudi, Turkish, US, UK etc support the so called rebellion would have been over years ago'. SaintAviator lets talk 22:23, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

The US should be included as a belligerent

The US has SOF actively in combat alongside SDF. They are beyond the role of support.

204.197.176.8 (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It is. The US is listed as the first of CJTF-OIR, a major belligerent. Editor abcdef (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

CJTF-OIR is listed under support. IMO the support descriptor should be removed. 69.166.120.148 (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes they are a belligerent. SaintAviator lets talk 20:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Separation of Jaysh al-Islam from FSA and FSA conjuction with HTS

The current infobox doesn't reflect the realities in Syria on the ground.

I believe, considering the recent events, that Jaysh al-Islam should have its own section in oppossition tab, apart from FSA, considering the militant groups are fighting eachother all over Eastern Ghouta with mass casualties on both sides, towns being captured and lost etc. I've written a lot about this in the article Qaboun offensive (February–April 2017), because this conflict doesn't have an article of its own.

Also the FSA faction (Faylaq al-Rahman) in Eastern Ghouta and Qaboun are closely linked and fighting alongside Hayyat Tahrir al-Sham rebel alliance, same situation in Northern Hama with Free Idlib Army, Jaysh al-Izza and Jaysh al-Nasr factions allying themselves with Tahrir al-Sham, same situation in Daraa governorate between Southern Front and Tahrir al-Sham.

So essentially all most active combat fronts witness close alliance between FSA and HTS, though there is no cooperation between Jaysh al-Islam and FSA at all.

I would like to mention that for reasons unclear, Tahrir al-Sham rebel coalition is present at the very bottom of the infobox, with FSA and Ahrar al-Sham being at the top, this seems counterintuitive to me, because HTS is by far larger rebel alliance than FSA or AaS and they are the ones leading offenses all over syria against the Syrian Army. GroundlessAir (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Everyone in Syria has fought everyone else at some point. Creating and removing separation lines every time someone attacks an ally will be an eternal and ultimately futile procedure. A better solution is just to wait and see how alliances evolve in the long run, then we can change the infobox, rather than changing it back and forth every other week. FunkMonk (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with FunkMonk. EkoGraf (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with FunkMonk. In addition, throughout the 6-year war, the FSA fought HTS far more than they have fought JaI. The Rahman Legion does not represent all of the "FSA" and two other major FSA-affiliated groups in Eastern Ghouta, the Glory Brigades and the 1st Brigade, have stayed neutral in the infighting so far. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes we wait. There are no loyalties or strong bonds amoungst the Rebels or Jihadists as there is for instance in the Russian or US Military and even the Syrian military looks good compared to them. These proxie mercenary like rebels and the deluded Jihadists are currently killing each other in Ghouta and it will go on. The next big thing is this. [4]. SaintAviator lets talk 20:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Shortening the article

1 Shorten Timeline

Should we remove the timeline?

The timeline already exists in Course of events of the Syrian Civil War. It also appears to be a word for word copy and paste. Like c'mon.

It feels like the banner reading "This article may be too long to navigate comfortably" has been here longer than the war itself. Someone should do something already. Let's shorten the article Crewcamel (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC) |}

2 Belligerents of the Syrian War

The list we have is very long. This is what it looks like currently: Syrian War Belligerents

We need to keep certain parts of it but others must go. My suggestion is to keep the summaries of Ba'athist Syria, the Syrian Opposition, the SDF, ISIL, and the Western Coalition. keep

The National Defense Force, Shabiha and Christian Militias i believe should not have their own summaries and should be removed

Iran, Russia, Hezbollah, and the foreign shia militias should be moved to "Foreign involvement" move

How does that sound? --Crewcamel (talk) 23:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

That does not sound good. Having some degree of content overlap is fine, and all these materials are relevant and important for describing the war. You need to wait. If a few other people will look at this and support your changes, then they can be done. My very best wishes (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The header saying this page is too long has been here forever. (several years at least) Not to mention it says the article should be around 137 kilobytes and it's currently close to 400k. So it's obvious that not "all of these materials are important". I'm just trying to be the one that finally does something.

You're right that i should wait. However it's very difficult to get a discussion going here. If no one answers i go ahead with the changes. Crewcamel (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is your first edit. You tell that the course of the events was mostly split already to page Course of events of the Syrian Civil War if I understand correctly? OK. But you simply removed everything from the section. Instead, you suppose to make a brief summary of the timeline and keep links to other pages where these events are described in more details. Simply removing everything and leaving only links is not the way to fix it. My very best wishes (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I think i went too far with the timeline. But do you disagree with the edits i made on the belligerent's section? Because you reverted those too.

Does anyone else having any opinions on this? 20:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

3 Infobox

I have a "draft" sorta on shortening the Infobox. The info box is currently very long and completely unreadable on mobile. Here is my suggestion: Crewcamel (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War Infobox

Syrian Civil War Part of the Arab Spring, the Arab Winter, the spillover of the Iraqi Civil War and Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict Current military situation: Red: Syrian government, Green: Syrian opposition, Yellow: Rojava (SDF), Grey: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, White: Tahrir al-Sham (formerly known as the al-Nusra Front) For a more detailed map, see Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War. The map above was last updated on 13 May 2017. Date 15 March 2011 (2011-03-15) – present (13 years, 9 months and 4 days) Location Syria (with spillovers in neighboring countries) Status Ongoing Territorial changes As of May 2017: the government held 22.03% of Syria (70.6% of the population); ISIL-held territory constituted 32.38% of Syria (5.9% of the population); 22.43% controlled by the SDF (14.2% of the population); 23.16% held by rebel groups (including the al-Nusra front; 9.3% of the population) Main belligerents Syrian government Syrian Armed Forces National Defence Forces Ba'ath Brigades Allied groups al-Abbas Brigade Arab Nationalist Guard Army of Monotheists Fatemiyoun Brigade PFLP-GC Sootoro SSNP Syrian Resistance Iran (from 2013) Hezbollah (from 2013) Russia (from 2015) Support: China Syrian opposition Free Syrian Army Southern Front (from 2014) Jaysh al-Islam Turkey[a] (from 2016) Support: Saudi Arabia Qatar France United States[b] Libya (2011–13) Rojava (SDF) (from 2012) Allied Groups YPG YPJ JaT MFS IFB Support: United States (from 2014) Russia (from 2015) France (from 2016) PKK Iraqi Kurdistan PUK (from 2013) KDP (2013–15) CJTF–OIR (from 2014) Participants United States[b] France United Kingdom Netherlands Australia Jordan Germany Former participants: Canada Bahrain Denmark Belgium Saudi Arabia UAE Qatar Morocco Commanders and leaders Bashar al-Assad (President of Syria) more Fahd Jassem al-Freij (Minister of Defense) Ali Abdullah Ayyoub (Chief of Staff of the Army) Issam Hallaq (Chief of Staff of the Air Force) Issam Zahreddine (Major General of the Republican Guard) Ali Mamlouk (Director of the National Security Bureau) Rafiq Shahadah (Head of the Military Intelligence Directorate) Hassan Nasrallah (Secretary General of Hezbollah) Ali Khamenei (Supreme Leader of Iran) Vladimir Putin (President of Russia) KIA: Assef Shawkat † (Deputy Minister of Defense) Dawoud Rajiha † (Minister of Defense) Rustum Ghazaleh † (Head of Syrian National Intelligence) Hilal al-Assad † (Head of National Defence Forces) Hossein Hamadani † (IRGC Major General) Hassan Shateri † (Senior Commander of IRGC) Samir Kuntar † (Senior Commander of Hezbollah) Mustafa Badreddine † (Military Leader of Hezbollah) Mohamad Issa † (Hezbollah Chief of Operations in Syria) Jihad Mughniyah † (Hezbollah Head of Security) File:Fatimiyun.jpg Ali Reza Tavassoli † (Leader of Liwa Fatemiyoun) Bashar al-Zoubi (Commander of the Southern Front) Ahmed Issa al-Sheikh (Leader of the Islamic Front) Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (President of Turkey) Lt. Gen. Zekai Aksakallı (Operations chief commander) KIA: Zahran Alloush † (Islamic Front Military Chief) Abdul Qader Saleh † (Founder of Al-Tawhid Brigade) Muhammad al-Baridi † (Founder of Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade) Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (WIA) (Caliph of ISIL) Gulmurod Khalimov (Minister of War) Abu Fatima al-Jaheishi (Deputy Leader) Abu Muhammad al-Shimali (Senior Leader) KIA: Haji Bakr † (Former Deputy leader of ISIL and Head of Military Council) Abu Ayman al-Iraqi † (Former Head of Military Council) Abu Ali al-Anbari † (Deputy, Syria) Abu Omar al-Shishani † (War Minister) Abu Umar al-Tunisi † (Senior Leader) Abu Sayyaf † (Oil Minister) Abu Muslim al-Turkmani † (Deputy Leader) Abu Abdulrahman al-Bilawi † (Head of Military Council) Riad Darar (Co-chairperson of the MSD) Îlham Ehmed (Co-chairperson of the MSD) Salih Muhammad (Co-President of the PYD) Asya Abdullah (Co-President of the PYD) Sipan Hemo (Commander of the YPG) Stephen J. Townsend (Commander of CJTF-OIR) Strength Syrian Armed Forces: 180,000 General Security Directorate: 8,000 National Defense Force: 80,000 Allied groups Hezbollah: 6,000–8,000 Ba'ath Brigades: 7,000 Russia: 4,000 troops and 1,000 contractors Iran: 3,000–5,000 Other allied groups: 15,500+ FSA: 40,000–50,000 Islamic Front: 40,000–70,000 Other groups: 12,500 15,000–20,000 (U.S. claim, late 2016) SDF: 50,000+ YPG and YPJ: 57,000–60,000 (most, not all, part of the SDF) Syriac Military Council: 2,000 Army of Revolutionaries: 3,000 Casualties and losses Syrian Government: 60,901–95,901 soldiers killed 45,290–59,290 militiamen killed 4,700 soldiers and militiamen and 2,000 supporters captured Allied groups Hezbollah: 1,421–1,700 killed Iran: Over 1000 Iranian soldiers killed (November 2016) Russia: 33–38 soldiers and 28–34 contractors killed Other non-Syrian fighters: 6,862 killed 110,811–146,811 fighters killed[d] 979 protesters killed Turkey: 71 soldiers killed (2016–17 ground incursion) 11,522+ killed (per SOHR) 20,711+ killed (per YPG and SAA) Rojava: 3,613 killed CJTF–OIR: 3 killed 96,073–103,648 civilian deaths estimate Total killed: 321,358–451,358 (March 2017 SOHR estimate) Over 7,600,000 internally displaced (July 2015 UNHCR estimate) Over 4,800,000 refugees (August 2016 estimate NRC Handelsblad) a Turkey has provided arms support to the Syrian opposition since 2011. From August 2016 to March 2017, Turkey fought alongside a rebel contingent in Aleppo governorate against the SDF and ISIL but not against the Syrian government. b From September to November 2016, the United States fought alongside a rebel contingent in Aleppo governorate solely against ISIL, but not against the Syrian government or the SDF. In April 2017, the United States attacked the Syrian government in response to the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack. hidden refs References

Thoughts?

I'll give this about a week. If no one answers i'm making the changes. 20:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Whether you need an article on the Syrian Arab army offensive against rebel positions between Eastern Qalamun and Eastern Homs?

Whether you need an article on the Syrian Arab army offensive against rebel positions between Eastern Qalamun and Eastern Homs or is it part of Eastern Homs offensive (2017)? I do not think you need a new member, or if you need then do we start?--Baba Mica (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Separate offensives. EkoGraf (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

The map shouldn't show sparsely populated deserts as under control of any of the belligerents

Deserts make up most of the land in Eastern and South Eastern Syria. No armed group can control deserts, there's simply nothing there to control. Perhaps there's a fortress here and there, or a town by a river, and these could be marked as under control of whoever controls, but the area around them shouldn't. Tahrir al-Sham should be colored blue and sparsely populated deserts white.

Bodies of those murdered by Assad's forces being burned in a specially constructed crematorium - reliably sourced info being removed

EkoGraf, I'm glad you agree that the fact that thousands of bodies being burned in a specially constructed crematorium are "worth mentioning". Actually... what the fuck? Of course it's worth mentioning! And this is the biggest story on this topic in months. So yes, it needs to go in the lede. Without that al-Masdar bullshit and their malicious dishonest spin on the State Dept. presser.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

"And this is the biggest story on this topic in months."? That's just your personal observation. It can be easily argued that the Shayrat airstrike was a bigger story. Plus, these are nothing but allegations. The State Departments language shows that they're only making assumptions based off of photographs and that its quite possible it might not even be a crematorium at all. They said "possibly". So no, not lead material. I don't mind it going into the body of the article as long as it's presented in a WP:NPOV way. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No, that's the observation of something like 90 reliable sources available on this topic. yeah ok the missile strike is up there too. The point is, this is lede material even if it bothers some people's twisted preconceptions.

And as I said at the other article - stop making crap up about primary sources. THAT is original research. Look, it's easy. Find a RELIABLE source which talks about this and we're good to go. Otherwise leave this aktashite nonsense the phoque out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of those sources actually use the word "alleged", "claimed", and "accused". After all, they're basing their assumptions off of photographs and are doing guesswork. The State Department was honest enough to say "possibly" when pressed that it may just be a warmer part of the building. I see no reason to say any of these allegations are true. Étienne Dolet (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, if that's what these sources do, we can do that too. But that's NOT what you're doing. You're adding a shitty source that used to employ a neo-Nazi to source some bullshit about the word "possibly" that cannot be found in any reliable source. I don't care how you see it. The fact that you're willing to engage in mass murder denial has been established by your actions, the only thing that your comment adds, is that you now explicitly confirm it.

Gee, let me go out into the internets and find a source as good as al-Masdar that uses the words "possibly" and "Armenian genocide" in a way similar to what you're trying to pull here. 100$ says I can do it easy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Armenian Genocide is actually proven. This, however, is not. After all, it wasn't Al-Masdar that used the word "possibly", rather the State Department. You know, the very same entity that made this claim in the first place. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Sight*. Look, reliable source or it goes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The point is that it is just as easy - easier - to find sources which try to weasel the subject of Armenian Genocide and which are comparable in quality to "al-Masdar" (or even this WION whatever that is). What you need are RELIABLE sources. How do you not understand this simple request? Oh, because you can't find such sources. So you're trying to bluster through.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, I still don't see how "However, when pressed by a reporter if it could simply be a warmer part of the building, Acting Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs Stuart Jones responded "possibly". could be a misrepresentation of the exchange that occurred at the press briefing. And I still don't see how Al-Masdar misrepresented the exchange either. It's not reporting on a controversial event, rather it's reporting what occurred at this particular press briefing. If you can convince me how a press briefing is controversial, then we won't have to use Al-Masdar and just stick to the primary source. Either way is fine with me. Also, if you have a problem with WION, send it to the RSN. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec) "Not really, I do have a source. The State Department itself." - quit playing stupid games. You know you need a reliable secondary source. And you really need to stop with this "non-controversial" wet bucket of shit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: WION. Nope that's not how it works. You want to use an obscure website for controversial claim? YOU take it to WP:RSN. Burden of proof is on you. Quit obfuscating and being disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No, per WP:PRIMARY we can use them as long as we directly quote them or use them as a matter of fact. And yes, press briefings, or articles that provide a summation of them, are not controversial. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm just gonna sit and wait for that reliable secondary source, while you peruse WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

What makes State Department press briefing not reliable though? And saying it's WP:PRIMARY doesn't help because we're not interpreting or misrepresenting what the State Department said. We're merely using it as a matter of fact and quoting them directly. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, first, I would remind you again of WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH. Now, regarding the crematorium allegation, like I said, its notable enough to be in the article (where I moved it in the context of the already existing paragraph on the prison), but its not notable enough to be in the lead when taking into account many other notable events that have also taken place during the war in the last six years. Regarding to what is included in article leads, please see WP:LEAD. We summarize the main subject of the article, as well as the most important points. This one allegation consists of only two sentences in the whole article. It is more appropriate, per WP:LEAD, to be included in the lead paragraph of the article on the prison itself. And it is already there. In any case, the reliably sourced info (regarding the crematorium allegation) at the moment isn't removed and shouldn't be removed. As for the State Department briefing, I refer to what EtienneDolet said regarding the proper usage of primary sources. Also, a second (non-Masdar) source regarding the possibly remark was also cited. That you consider WION an obscure site is your personal view. And a press briefing exchange is not really controversial or a claim. EkoGraf (talk) 03:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say and couldn't have said it better myself. Khirurg (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

the crematorium is confirmed by reliable sources and it must be mentioned.Alhanuty (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, first you repeat this ridiculous "it's not controversial claim". Specifically your claim is that "a press briefing exchange is not really controversial". I don't even know what that is suppose to mean. That's like saying "a newspaper is not a controversial or a claim". It makes next to no grammatical sense. The TOPIC of this press briefing, the TOPIC of the text being discussed, the TOPIC of this article is freakin' controversial. Because it's about the murder and burning of thousands of people. Stop it with this dishonest line that "this is non-controversial".

And WION IS a obscure non-RS source. And this is an opinion piece anyway. See WP:REDFLAG. The very fact that you guys cannot find an actual reliable secondary source to back up this text and instead try to rely on junk like al-Masdar, pretty much evidences that this is a bunch of crap. And oh yeah Khirurg, all that "me too!" comments do is suggest that you're only tag teaming but not actually contributing to the discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Exactly my opinion Alhanuty. My problem was its not lead material for this specific article. For the article on the prison itself, yes it is. As for the briefing thing, I'm not going to press this rather trivial issue, so whatever. My main concern was with the lead thing. EkoGraf (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• As of now, it is nothing but an unverified claim (the photos are eerily similar to Colin Powell's Iraqi WMD photos), and certainly doesn't belong in an article about the wider war, per WP:Undue. It can be discussed in one of the specified spin-off articles. FunkMonk (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The "possibly" quote from the State official is referring solely to the snow drift photo, not the other physical evidence for the crematorium so going into such detail in an already long article is unnecessary. In my view, prison/crematorium story is clearly important, should be in article, but discussion of detail should go to Human rights violations during the Syrian Civil War and the specific article about the prison.BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup and OK to both Funk and Bob. EkoGraf (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No, nothing is confirmed here, even with the other photographs. To quote Jones:

MR JONES: So if you look – so obviously, these photos date over several years from 2013 to 2017. If you look at the earliest photo, the August 13 photo, this is during the construction phase, and these HVAC facilities, the discharge stack, the probable firewall, the probable air intake, this is in the construction phase. This would be consistent if they were building a crematorium.

Then we look at the January 15 and we’re looking at snowmelt on the roof that would be consistent with a crematorium. So --

QUESTION: Or just a warmer part of a building, right?

MR JONES: Possibly.

These are just assumptions and guesswork. The State Department has no evidence. Looking at photographs and assuming it's a crematorium doesn't count as evidence. Making it "consistent" with a crematorium doesn't make it evidence either. I do agree, however, that this discussion might have to go to another article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. For the millionth time, what you need here is a RELIABLE SECONDARY source not your own WP:SYNTHESIS and original research. How long you've been on Wikipedia? How you don't know this? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Amnesty report from 2013

I removed it from the lede, since it is heavily outdated (predates the emergence of ISIS even), and moreover, it is just a single report by a single agency. Over the course of this war, dozens of reports have been published. Don't see why we should highlight one of those in the lede. Khirurg (talk) 06:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Basically I agree, I only attempted to be more specific regarding Marek's addition on who stated it and when. But yeah, basically one report from four years ago (outdated) isn't really lead material. EkoGraf (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

You can replace it with a general statement which says the same thing. There's newer reports so it can be updated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)