Jump to content

Talk:Russian intervention in the Syrian civil war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.194.210.70 (talk) at 21:29, 17 November 2015 (→Make mention Of French and Russian Cooperation?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Requested move 30 September 2015

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

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


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

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

The American-led intervention in Syria has the Islamic State as a primary target and it's only one aspect (the other being Iraq) of the regional anti-ISIL campaign. Russia's airstrikes, on the other hand, have a broader target: ISIL and (to a greater extent) foreign-backed rebel groups that are exclusive to the Syrian Civil War, hence the title. 197.36.19.14 (talk) 13:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is only the 3rd day of their intervention, Russia is already bombing ISIS in al-Raqqa. They might bomb ISIS to a greater extent soon, since Russia is in negotiations with Iraq on striking them together. Also, the US-led coalition is helping the Euphrates Volcano, which includes the Kurdish YPG and FSA. How is that not being involved in the Syrian Civil War? Not to mention that they also bombed the Al-Nusra Front and Khorasan - groups exclusive to the Syrian Civil War. SkoraPobeda (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • "Russian military intervention
  • "American-led intervention

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

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

Orphaned references in Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War

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

Reference named ":0":

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

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

Where did this come from?

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

– Haven't seen this report in any mainstream English media, and attirubtion to "U.S. air force staff" (I capped air force) sounds vague. Documentation? Sca (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This report seems to contradict unsourced statement, which I have deleted. Sca (talk) 21:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This report tells there are only ~80 rebels trained by USA. My very best wishes (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't only a matter of direct training by the US; it has supplied TOWs to many different groups. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions-Media

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

Worldwide media reactions to the Russian-Iranian military intervention in Syria might eat up bandwidth better devoted to featuring noteworthy reactions from, as you said, ISIS, other countries, and groups like Amnesty International. Perhaps a vote should be taken as to whether or not this section should be kept?TH1980 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead an removed it. As there were no objections a vote seemed unnecessary. We can always vote if it is re-added, though I really cannot see why one would. Hollth (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese Question

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

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

Wikipedia:Moving a page

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

Oh yes, this is a unilateral move that must be reverted. If anyone wants to move this page, please make an RfC. My very best wishes (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I reported this to ANI [2]. My very best wishes (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image

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

What a wholly misleading and anodyne image. The article needs an image of the Free Syrian Army being killed, by Russian bombing, in their own homes, like this one: [3]. 217.38.74.52 (talk) 09:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Yes, since ISIS does not have open support of any state. And alQaeda its considered by MSM a terrorist organization. The Only Anti Asssad Organization with u.s support its the FSA. Mr.User200 (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This question may be out of ignorance on my part of Wiki structure, but shouldn't the side bar have 3 rows? It make it look like that the FSA & the USA are on the side of IS, when this is very much a 3 sided conflict. JanderVK (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

This isn't the place to ask that question. That parent article has existed since 2012. The article under discussion was created on September 30, 2015. You may ask your question in a separate and unrelated thread either on this page or on that article's talk page, but please avoid side topics in this focused merge discussion. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 07:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering more along the lines of whether or not 1 of the articles being discussed (presumably the Russian-led military intervention in Syria article) would be more suitable for a merger w/that page. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That parent article has existed since 2012 and is over-large already, so the answer is a definite no as concerns this discussion. The two articles under discussion in this merge debate are nearly identical to each other and were created in the past five days within three days of each other. If you have any other questions or comments unrelated to this particular merge proposal, please create a separate and unrelated thread either on this page or on that article's talk page. Please avoid side topics/thoughts/questions in this merge discussion focused on these two articles. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

About the title

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

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

Why is this article named "Russian–Iranian military intervention" if Iran was already intervening in Syria since late 2013? [5] [6] Apparently, Iran now is only stepping up its presence in the region. Coltsfan (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The photo used

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

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

Reactions

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

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

Rusian violations of Turkish airspace

Does this rate a mention:

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

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

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

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

"700+ surrendered in Daraa"

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

Result of merge proposal

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

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

  • Agree! No logic. The clone article (created by copypaste) must be redirected to original article, but not vice versa, as of now! Also above (in the first RM section) it was consensus for "in Syria" name, but against "in the Syrian Civil War". 178.94.165.139 (talk) 08:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC) P.S. Where is "merging"? Simply redirect is not "merging". Redirect was performed at some times by different users two days ago, but was reverted. 178.94.165.139 (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to merge anything because I'm not familiar enough with the subject to be able to merge content properly. As I noted above, others, more familiar with this topic, need to perform the merge; I put in a redirect to make it less likely that people will add extra content to the page that needs to be merged. Finally, remember that when two pages are merged, there's no real difference if we merge A into B or vice versa, aside from the title, and that can always be switched. Nyttend (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CIA and Obama

I have two questions over here:

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

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

I removed the CIA from the infobox before I saw your comment. My reasoning is that the CIA itself is not active in the war.David O. Johnson (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the Supported by thing (that is already in the article, although is incomplete cuz is not only the US and the PYD that are supporting the FSA), but as a 'belligerent' and as a Units involved? It doesn't make much sense. Coltsfan (talk) 03:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that including rebels "supported by US" (as in current version) is fine. My very best wishes (talk) 13:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If one member of the coalition is listed, all should be. If we're going to take that approach, I suggest using a collapsible list. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:05, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the lists are way too long. I would rather remove all "supporting" sides and only leave direct participants. My very best wishes (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Coltsfan (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Targets of airstrikes

According to mainstream sources, the targets of Russian airstrikes are usually not ISIS, but rebel groups that are enemies of ISIS and Assad government [7]. That should be noted in the intro. In addition using sources like Sputnik (news agency) for this page is questionable. My very best wishes (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article heavily downplays the fact that Russia has actually been directing most of its firepower at non-ISIL targets, both secular (Free Syrian Army, etc.) and Islamist (Nusra, etc.). I don't have the time or energy right now to try to fix it, and I'm sure I'd encounter plenty of resistance anyway, but this article is shambolic as it stands. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's ridiculous how the intro is worded. The intro essentially takes the claims of the Russian government at face value, ignoring that these claims are very much doubted by man reliable sources. Note also that when it comes to the US military intervention, it leaves out that the fact that this is an intervention of a broad coalition of 30 countries. And uses the rather loaded word "ostensibly" to cast doubt on the assertion that this intervention is directed against IS. A very one-sided intro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.215.72.118 (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is mostly fixed right now, I think. My very best wishes (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Referencing to RT (TV network)

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

Al-Masdar is also a highly dubious source, as just a cursory reading of their recent "news" articles will tell you. It seems to function as a mouthpiece for the Syrian government and its allies. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. However, given that the page is under sanctions, I am not going to really contribute. All the POV and poorly sourced claims are going to stay. My very best wishes (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that the RT is the propaganda of the Russian government, but if avoid them, then we should also be avoided US, Qatari and other propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.15 (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Like what? The U.S. government has no editorial control over American media outlets with the possible exception of Voice of America, which I agree shouldn't be leaned on as a source for contentious subjects like this one. There simply isn't a real apples-to-apples comparison between the tightly controlled Russian media and the laissez-faire Western press. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? US government has no control over their 'Newspapers'?? Ideally perhaps. but don't be so naive to think that any "western" media outlets are unbiased or favoring their point of view. If you want to take crwedit away, do so for both sides equally. for example: Why should I believe what an american reporter says about how a russian reporter twists a fact around, for example where bomb A hit the ground? The russian will try and make it sound like the hit target (regardless of the target was) and the american will say it missed, or hit the wrong thing. Why.... because their in a political dispute over this.
Read the point below — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.109.63.17 (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any fundamental difference between the US and the Russian media, the same imperial approaches to presenting information: manipulation of the facts, double standards and political cliches, the absence of the opposite view - what clearly noticeable for european viewe. Perhaps a little different methods of influence, in one case a state corporation, another - big business, but the essence is the same - to promote the interests of their own political clans. Though of course there're really independent media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.15 (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion, while interesting, isn't particularly material to Wikipedia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As well as yours. Although in the articles of censorship in the United States (Russian Federation) You can find reliable sources. Or recently Kunduz hospital airstrike - Media reaction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.15 (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For further discussion, I have started a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Syrian_Arab_News_Agency about this apparent censorship attack on Russian, Syrian, Iranian, Iraqi news agencies as reliable sources such as on this page against RT and Sputnik. Guru Noel (talk) 08:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RT seems to be a reliable source from the discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Syrian_Arab_News_Agency Lipsquid (talk) 16:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a grotesque distortion of the discussion going on there. As the editors there observe, these media outlets are not editorially independent and have a well-documented pattern of use by totalitarian governments to spread disinformation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a distortion at all and most media outlets are biased towards their home countries, I am not sure why anyone would think they would act differently. Editors choosing which state-supported media outlets are reliable would be dangerous and very non-neutral situation. Maybe we need more clarification if people are going to continue to delete RT sourced material. I thought we provide sources with all available credible views and let the reader decide... Lipsquid (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not when certain outlets have demonstrated a pattern of providing false or misleading information on behalf of the government that controls them. Please don't claim other people are saying what you want them to say when they're clearly not. It's disrespectful to them and it's dishonest. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are introducing opinions as to who is a reliable source and who is not, which is dangerous. The conversation on the RS board speaks for itself. "A state-run news agency will generally be treated by Wikipedia the same as the government's official spokesperson, regardless of the topic being covered." Lipsquid (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the same as a state-run news agency being considered a reliable source. It can be a source for reporting a government's viewpoint, where notable, but the context must make it clear where the claims are coming from and due weight must be considered. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are saying the same thing. People should attribute SANA or RT statements to their organization, but the associated statements should not be reverted or deleted by other editors as long as the attributions are clear. WP:NEWSORG Lipsquid (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How is Al-Masdar "highly dubious"? It seems that any Syrian government leaning news is immediately shut down just because it doesn't follow the common "Assad must go" bias. Al-Masdar doesn't call the rebels "terrorists", and neither is Al-Masdar tightly controlled by the Syrian government. In the so called "laissez-faire Western press", we hardly see a distinction in the "moderate non-ISIS groups", whereas in Al-Masdar they tell you directly that (besides ISIS) Russia is bombing the Islamist Ahrar ash-Sham, Al-Qaeda's Al-Nusra Front, and their partners in the FSA. SkoraPobeda (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read any of Al-Masdar's coverage of Israel/Palestine or the conflict in Yemen and it is immediately clear that the agency is strongly biased. Additionally, I have doubts as to its notability; it has no Wikipedia article and doesn't even provide so much as the country where it is based in the information on its website. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The website is the English version of Al-Masdar.net, which is a part of the non-partisan American organization "The Israel Project". [8] [9] Give me a good example of how strong their bias is instead of just saying that they are strongly biased. SkoraPobeda (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RT is a Russian state-funded propaganda organ of the Kremlin.[10][11][12][13]. Watch this video at Al Jazeera. — Ríco 22:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Anti-IS coalition"

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

This page is not about Syrian Civil War, but about Russian military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Hence one of the sides should be Russia (and allies of Russia in the operations - this is Iran, but not US or other NATO forces), and another "side" should be forces attacked by Russian military (this is also not US forces, but possibly some "US-supported" rebels). My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now it's been replaced with the nonsensical "anti-Russia". This page is out of control. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes [14]. It certainly is. My very best wishes (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Add Igor Konashenkov Russian commander

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

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

Requested move 12 October 2015

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

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


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

I think the current title makes it clear it is something like a "boots on the ground" (or, in this case "in the air") intervention. This article was created after and deals with events after Russia's decision to use its aircraft for offensive missions in Syrian airspace, which suggests that other sort of interventions (such as supplies of armaments) by Russia are not "military inventions" as such. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment - Despite majority of support, I see some merit on opposition. --George Ho (talk) 04:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I consider Russian response to combat terrorism is rational and a cleanup action, although in Syria there are more countries intervening through proxies or openly. Thus I propose "Russian intervention in Syria combating terrorism" Nannadeem (talk) 19:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per others. Unnecessary lengthy title. Look at the title of American-led intervention in Syria. EkoGraf (talk) 09:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, not an ounce of reasoning is presented to support the title change. Why is it "unnecessary lengthy"? Why do you think the word "military" is unnecessary? What can you say to counter the argument that "intervention" alone is vague and imprecise? What do you have against the use of the phrase "Syrian Civil War"? What argument are you presenting for the use of "Syria" as its alternative? This isn't a ballot box election and all you need is to cast a yes or no vote - some reasoning is also required in order to validate that vote. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - the intervention is specifically in the Syrian crisis (which means current conflict in and around Syria). Russian intervention in Syria could also mean other things, like the Soviet support to Syria in the 1973 War. Furthermore, 2 out of 3 parallel articles are named "intervention in the Syrian Civil War" - Jordanian intervention in the Syrian Civil War, Russian intervention in the Syrian Civil War, with only one exceptional American-led intevention in Syria. Furthermore, Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War articles are also named "in the Syrian Civil War" - Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War, Russian involvement in the Syrian Civil War, Iranian involvement in the Syrian Civil War.GreyShark (dibra) 21:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because it could mean other things doesn't mean it does. Russian ≠ Soviet. For example, Joseph Stalin was Georgian. It was a Soviet intervention, not a Russian one. The involvement articles are about 'involvement in the Syrian Civil War' in general. Intervention articles are very specific; they are about American/Russian etc military action in Syria, the phrase 'in the Syrian Civil War' is unnecessary and redundant. DylanLacey (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The article describes Russia's military operations in the Syrian Civil War. This takes place in Syria of course, but I don't see any justification for replacing the name of the war with the location of the war. Just the fact that the name of the location is shorter is not a good reason. Which war Russia has intervened in is a more relevant part of the title than its location.--Orwellianist (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article titles should be concise; no longer than necessary. Russia has never intervened in Syria before, and Syria has been home to one war - the Syrian Civil War - since Russia's independence in 1991. So what other conflict could Russian intervention in Syria be referring to, other than the Syrian Civil War? DylanLacey (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with your interpretation of conciseness. Take 464 BC Sparta earthquake for example. There were no other earthquakes in 464 BC that were recorded by historians, so by your logic we could do away with Sparta and call it 464 BC earthquake, as that title could not be referring to anything else. However, that would be ludicrous, I would argue that the location is an essential part of that title, even if unnecessary by your standards.
      • I also disagree with your definition of conciseness. You are simply counting letters here, which is meaningless. It is true that in this case the name of the location is shorter than the name of the war. It could have been the other way around, the name of the war could be shorter than the name of the location, e.g. "in Bosnia and Herzegovina" vs "in the Bosnian War". Were we to use the name of the war in that case, just because it has less number of letters? That standard is not a sensible one. What you are suggesting is not decreasing the number of details in the name, but replacing one detail with the other, i.e. the war with the location. And I am saying no, I think the name of the war is more essential than the name of the location, so I see no point in that replacement.--Orwellianist (talk) 17:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 100% clear, exact and neutral title. Length irrelevant. - üser:Altenmann >t 03:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Beware of the Media

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

Just because a free and democratic Press (the West) sometimes writes ugly truths about Putin's regime's actions does not make it "biased." Bias is the deliberate ignoring of facts and presentation of news in a non-objective way. 68.19.10.204 (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Might not that be framed in another way? Because some reporters write about Russian involvement in Syria, does not mean that such reports are a true reflection of events. Is the “democratic Press” always free of bias? Why all the questioning of Russian news media, when Western information outlets are just as able of ignoring the facts and presenting ‘news’ in a less-than-objective way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.225.101 (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Reactions

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

Does anybody have any objects to me removing it? If I don't see any in a couple of days, I'm going to delete it.Hollth (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Media reactions are opinions, the opinions of various pundits sitting in warm cozy offices representing the "media" do not matter in a war. The opinions that matter are the opinions of the governments of the countries or organizations involved in the conflict. All other opinions are not very informative or useful. I would also delete them. Lipsquid (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly there are FB editors who believe that the opinions of everyone and their brothers are relevant about everything. You will be fighting an uphill battle and revert any attempt of yours to remove said opinions. Sorry.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is incorrect. Just because something is published in a mainstream media outlet or by a RS it is not necessarily noteworthy, nor is it necessarily encyclopaedic. I see no reason to have a repository of op-eds from unknown people. Either they are facts that cannot be added to the article, in which case they needn't be in the media section or they are speculation and allegations, in which case why include them? Hollth (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been reverted back and forth 3 times. Only one person bothered to post on why "Media Reactions" should stay. Uphill battle indeed. Lipsquid (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not support the idea of having a "repository of op-eds". But thus far, we do not have it. The very first aggregated opinion/analysis bit effectively represents background info important for understanding the overall context of the event from the Russian perspective, so i would not object to moving that particular bit to the "background section", or even the lede; but technically speaking, this is a shared expert opinion. Others may represent kind of analytical propaganda salvos, but all the names are heavy-weight think-tank/journalism pundits who are effectively mouthpieces of powerful establishments and thus are most relevant for elucidating the context.Axxxion (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5,613 killed, wounded and deserted

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

Why is the U.S. in the lede?

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

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

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

Friedman: 'journalistic hot-air salesman'?

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

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

So, what changes do you propose we make? GABHello! 15:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I imagine we could shorten the quote a bit. What does everyone else think? GABHello! 15:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I am going to deleted it, which seems to have general consensus Lipsquid (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Friedman seems a well esteemed American opinionist, who, like any serious political commentator, ofcourse has fervent, perhaps even embittered, adversaries (see comment in this section, 18Oct,15:27,anonymous,"hot-air salesman"; 19Oct.Lipsquid,"blather"). Such scolding (2x) doesn't diminish his status and importance a bit--rather on the contrary. Mr. Friedman won thrice the Pulitzer Prize (1983,1988,2002) and writes weekly in The New York Times; that illustrates his status. Disagreement with his opinion is no good reason to delete it. I'll place it back. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Corriebertus on this one. If we are going to allow media reactions (which I disagree with), then Friedman should stay given his notability. Having said that, the quote probably should be shortened. Hollth (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear!Axxxion (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While disagreeing with Friedman's remarks might not be the best reason to deleting it, should not his remarks have some relation to the world as it is - and not the wishin and hopin of the neo-cons? Then again, does not Friedman's sexed-up NYT report indicate just how embittered some are about the almost total failure of US policy in Syria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.190.145 (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Why? Maybe because Wikipedia articles on controversial or ongoing events are often manipulated through off-topic content selection, cherrypicking, OR, and synthesis to convey messages that are not supported by facts or legitimate content. But you know all about doing that, from your EEML days. That aside, I agree with you; that section should be removed from this article as off-topic material. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes proposal is seconded (removed and merged back - if there is anything to merge).Nannadeem (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest to keep this section, but re-write it to more clearly reflect Russian-Iranian military cooperation during this war. My very best wishes (talk)
Agree. Coltsfan (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Reactions" section

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

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

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

Syrian Observatory For Human Rights is not a reliable source

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

And why? Editor abcdef (talk) 23:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Becouse behind that grandiouse name is just one guy who live in Conventry, guy is internet joke for last three year.

Russian ground forces in Syria

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

Why are the SAA, Iran, and Hezbollah here?

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

This pages is dealing with intervention in the Syrian Civil War, correct? How many factions did Russia affect by its intervention? (Of course some think that Putin did it just for fun of kicking Obama's ass...) - üser:Altenmann >t 03:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah because they are such good friends that Putin taught it to be a funny joke. And its not that America was doing a whole lot to actually try to end it. I understand why they wish to talk, but lets face it: that option has expired long ago, especially when groups like ISIL are involved. Je M'exuse, singed it 195.109.63.17 (talk) 08:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make mention Of French and Russian Cooperation?

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

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


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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_intervention_in_the_Syrian_civil_war&oldid=691132509"