Eisspeedway

Talk:Syrian civil war

In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 17, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 20, 2011, March 26, 2011, March 31, 2011, April 9, 2011, April 21, 2011, April 23, 2011, April 26, 2011, November 13, 2011, July 16, 2012, May 6, 2013, and July 25, 2018.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 15, 2016, and March 15, 2019.


Is the Syrian Civil War over now?

With all major domestic factions having united under the Syrian Transitional Government, is the civil war period over? 128.187.116.26 (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for 1 March 2025 a new government will come in. Then it should be ended. 2409:40D0:15:8061:4111:B702:99B6:66B4 (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And even then it could easily restart for a bit, if large scale fighting with the Kurds happens 2001:56A:6FC1:3AC5:8069:BE1D:D370:99D6 (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a new phase for now... RossoSPC (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the war ends only when damascus new government authority is implemented on all syrian territories, like it used to be before the the start of the civil war, other than that, it would continue. 185.147.100.31 (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems oversimplified. If some areas become autonomous or integrated into a neighboring polity, but there is no armed conflict associated with that change in status, that wouldn't be a continuation of the civil war. SS451 (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That can be added in aftermath section 2409:40D0:3E:F429:9551:DCFA:77D3:9A3E (talk) 18:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SDF is now part of the transitional government, we could mark that date in, but there are still Ba'athist insurgencies going on DerEchteJoan (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The war is almost over BUT - No... Turkey/SNA is still attacking the AANES areas in the North, so there is still warfare. However, there is no fighting between SDF and HTS, so though they are still separate, those areas aren't fighting (and they have generally been on good terms).

Map is outdated

the current map was last updated on 7th feb and today is 1st March, many things happened such as syrian forces in affrin and azzaz but those locations are still not updated and whats the status of current isreal incursion etc. Bdmrayeen123 (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Afrin and Azar both are shown under government control as well as Jarbulus manbij etc Waleed (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's reasonable cause to not call this ended yet

  1. There's been a massive escalation with Israel and the Druze. Some Druze factions are declaring themselves apart from the slowly congealing central government, and Israel is upping their rhetoric. Meanwhile other Druze factions are aligning tightly with the government.
  2. The Assad Loyalist and Alawite Insurgency has escalated in severity the last week, they've attacked several towns to the degree that reinforcements needed to be shipped in and the head of the Tiger Force is still at large allegedly leading them.
  3. The SNA and Turks are still having some issues with the central government and haven't merged to the same degree something like the RCA has
  4. The Kurdish situation is volatile and USA withdrawing troops could leave an opening for a flareup around Kobani.


Way too many things are escalating or absurdly tense to call it done right now when things could collapse at any moment. TheBrodsterBoy (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This must be part of an aftermath section 2409:40D0:11E0:553E:8875:CE94:54E8:E388 (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2025

This must be corrected there was No Syrian civil War. it was a propaganda by the Assad regime 46.196.145.145 (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Were you living under a rock? 2409:40D0:11E0:553E:8875:CE94:54E8:E388 (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2025

Please update the map, all the territories except that controlled by the SDF should be under the new Syrian Government 2409:40D0:11E0:553E:8875:CE94:54E8:E388 (talk) 13:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: updating a map cannot be accomplished through edit requests. I suggest you start a discussion about it and see what others think. If there is an agreement to update it, then you can make a request on WP:GL/M. M.Bitton (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should SOHR estimate be removed from the box?

The causalties section for civillian casualties states that per SOHR (I added the per due to the following controversies) 88% of civ. deaths come from the SAA.

The thing is, the SOHR has been found to include anti-government fighters as civillian deaths. It seems to be biased and I with a very lofty controversy surrounding it over who it counts as civillian or not, I'm not sure it should be included in the infobox. Maybe elsewhere in the body? Genabab (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be removed from the infobox without a talk page consensus. --Plumber (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plumber For something so small that seems like a bit much. What else other than an RFC? Genabab (talk) 10:08, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The SOHR is generally considered a reliable source and is cited multiple times on the page itself. --Plumber (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Plumber The issue I have with that is that a recent noticebord discussion concluded SOHR was not actually all that reliable. [See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_470#SOHR_(Syrian_Observatory_for_Human_Rights)]
It wasn't deemed unuseable, but if the source is deemed largely unreliable that suggests it ought not to be included in the infobox. Genabab (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was unaware of this new consensus. In that case, the Syrian Network for Human Rights would be a better source. Plumber (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Plumber Ok, maybe we need to be careful.. 91% is a very exceptional claim. and the discussion I linked did also mention problems with SNHR. Genabab (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The SNHR is considered a reliable source and there is consensus it is more reliable than SOHR. You encouraged me to find a source from it after all. The UN cited SNHR several times and continues to do so. Plumber (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did encourage the use of a different source, but I didn't say anything about SNHR. Again, 91% is a very very big claim that one NGO reporting it. isn't enough to really justify its inclusion in the infobox. It's just too big of a claim made by too small of a party.
As pointed out by user 20marcor here ("https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_massacres_of_Syrian_Alawites#SOHR_is_biased,_but_so_is_the_SNHR_(pro_Qatar/pro_Turkey_who_back_Sharaa's_government)"):
I want to also add that the SNHR also rarely if ever covered massacres and war crimes committed by the armed opposition (including Nusra) during the Syrian conflict, while focusing on the Assad regime's massacres.
For example, a simple search on SNHR's website on "Alawite" shows only reports on regime arrests of Alawite activists. They've never talked about massacres Nusra has committed against Alawites and Shia, eg.
Hatla massacre (2013), the massacres of N. Latakia countryside (Aug 2013) - reported by HRW and many other outlets, Maan massacre, Zara'a massacre, Eshtabraq massacre, and more. SNHR has claimed (without any evidence that HTS has only killed 549 people over the course of 14 years of war, which is quite ridiculous. If you look at their history of graphs on casualties, this 549 number includes deaths committed by Nusra before they reformed and regrouped into HTS). The standards that they have of documenting deaths is highly questionable and should definitely be scrutinized more.
As Bob then points out, SNHR *did* talk about some AQ/HTS crimes, but none of them every mentioned any of these massacres. This suggests that SNHR is guilty of very selective reporting and probably shouldn't be used either. @Plumber Genabab (talk) 11:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quick correction. I forgot that i did in fact say to look at the snhr in the edit summary, but that was before i knew they made such a crazy claim like "every civillian who died in he war was killed y assad" which made me scrutinise them more. Genabab (talk) 12:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You explicitly encouraged me to use add the SNHR source in the edit summary if found. The 91% by SNHR is very close to the 88% SOHR number. Since they are considered the top two reliable sources, we should probably just put both estimates on the page. Plumber (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> You explicitly encouraged me to use add the SNHR source in the edit summary if found.
Yes, you are right. But that was my mistake, in my other reply I said "that was before i knew they made such a crazy claim like "every civillian who died in he war was killed y assad" which made me scrutinise them more."
> The 91% by SNHR is very close to the 88% SOHR number.
Which, we agreed, was also unreliable.
Like, if SOHR is unreliable and says 88%, what does that say about SNHR giving an even bigger figure? Genabab (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add recent mass civilian executions of Alawites

We should add this latest chapter in the civil war in which either the Interim government or various other victorious factions have begun mass torture, abductions and executions of the minority Alawites.

https://www.france24.com/en/video/20250309-hundreds-of-alawite-civilians-killed-in-executions-by-syria-s-security-forces Liger404 (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What minority? Per the main article, there are up to 3 million Alawites in Syria and they are the "dominant religious group" on the Syrian coast. The Alawites used to be influential in both the Syrian military and the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Syria Region. The Assad family which dominated Syrian politics since the early 1970s is Alawite by religious affiliation. Dimadick (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Civil War’s End?

If I’m not wrong, has the Syrian CIVIL war not ended? If we don’t count the Assad Loyalist insurgents, which aren’t really causing a civil war, and with the agreement today… has the civil war not ended? I mean, Israel invading and what not, that’s all not a civil war just an invasion of another country. Flopqueen2000 (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support
There’s a translation of the agreement signed between both parties.
Translated text:
Based on a meeting held between President Ahmad Al-Sharaa and Mr. Muthallam Abdi on Monday, March 10, 2025, the following agreement was reached:
1. ⁠⁠Ensuring the rights of all Syrians to representation and participation in the political process and all state institutions based on competence, regardless of their religious or ethnic backgrounds.
2. ⁠⁠Recognizing the Kurdish community as an integral part of the Syrian state, ensuring its right to citizenship and all constitutional rights.
3. ⁠⁠Declaring a ceasefire across all Syrian territories.
4. ⁠⁠Integrating all civil and military institutions in northeastern Syria under the administration of the Syrian state, including border crossings, airports, oil fields, and gas.
5. ⁠⁠Guaranteeing the return of all displaced Syrians to their homeland, ensuring their settlement and providing them with protection from the Syrian state.
6. ⁠⁠Supporting the Syrian state in combating the remnants of the Assad regime and all threats that endanger its security and unity.
7. ⁠⁠Rejecting calls for division, hate speech, and attempts to incite strife among all components of Syrian society.
8. ⁠⁠The executive committees are working to implement the agreement with a goal to finalize it by the end of the current year.
Point 3 is especially important since it shows that SDF has declared a ceasefire with the Syrian government and has already integrated. Any conflicts that came after December 8 like Israeli Invasion of Syria, Jaramana Clashes, and Western Syria Clashes should be counted separately. 2603:7001:7340:33:8836:7E6D:9CB3:D1C3 (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No offense but I don’t get your point. Are you saying it ended already or not? Flopqueen2000 (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. The war is not over yet due to rise of the Assad loyalists and more recently the Suwayda Military Council which is being backed by Israel. So the Syrian Civil War is far from over, it’s just in a new phase. 2600:1702:5870:5930:0:0:0:3A (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that's not what a civil war is, remanants of the regime are not an ethnic or a relegious side in the conflict and neither do they have any political (except Iran) or domestic support, and Israel's actions in Syria are not really a CIVIL war, we could make a new page about an insurgency or whatever else you may call it but definitly not a CIVIL war anymore. 31.9.161.15 (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should we count the Eastern Front of World War II as not having ended until the 1950s because of various anti-communist partisans? Should we count the American Civil War as not ending until 1876? Collorizador (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support
By this point, all organized armed factions had either been absorbed into the new government structure or had ceased hostilities. The key criteria that define an ongoing civil war are no longer present.
Although some Assad loyalist elements may continue to resist, their activities do not meet the threshold for a civil war, as they lack territorial control, significant military capabilities, or a unified command structure. Such elements are better classified as remnants of a defeated regime engaging in isolated insurgent attacks, rather than a belligerent force capable of contesting control over the country.
10 March 2025 serves as the most appropriate conclusion to the Syrian Civil War. RamiPat (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait till there's sufficient hindsight Waleed (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. By this point, the Syrian Civil War has clearly ended, we should rather be debating about which end date we pick (Assad's fall? The Victory conference? March 10?) Collorizador (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With the agreement between the SDF and new government, there is military unity between all Syrian armed factions. 10 March could be used as an end date to the Syrian civil war if we can demonstrate this with sufficient secondary sources. --Plumber (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We rely on WP:Reliable sources to interpret the end of the war, not our own analyses of the situation. CMD (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Syrian Civil War is clearly still active. Sm8900 (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The conflict has not ended. It is far too early to say it has ended. Historyday01 (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've done a quick look. I'm not seeing any reliable sources that say the Civil War has actually ended. Feels like original research. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 15:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources:
Sm8900 (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is a major step and all fractions that hold territory are now unified under one government, hence calling it a "civil" war anymore is far fetched DerEchteJoan (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above. Since reliable sources are indicating the Suwayda Military Council joined the transitional government on 12 March, all factions holding territory are now united. --Plumber (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support With the deal with the kurds recently it is for sure over Yesyesmrcool (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the agreed ceasefire between SDF and STG, SNA has still continued to clash with SDF not recognizing the ceasefire, so weak oppose Waleed (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Due to SNA-SDF conflict and Ba'athist insurgency in the west Coast. + No RS say the war has ended yet Genabab (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support that there are no longer any actual confrontations between the Syrian National Army and the SDF after the agreement on March 10. We cannot consider the ambushes of the remnants of the assad regime as part of the civil war. They do not amount to that and do not enjoy the support of the Syrians. Something similar to the terrorist attacks carried out by ISIS in European countries MUHA1222 (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SNA and SDF have continued to clash despite the ceasefire though Waleed (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose
  1. There is still fighting between the SNA and SDF and between the Syrian army and Assad loyalists.
  2. Do most reliable secondary sources confirm that the war is over? Look above at @Sm8900’s post.
  3. The ceasefire has not yet been reached.
GN22 (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Regarding users who have pointed out that there is still fighting between SDF and SNA (which serves as a Turkish proxy force), Turkey and Kurdistan Communities Union declared a ceasefire on 1 March 2025 (external link). Which was followed by a separate peace treaty between HTS and SDF on 11 March 2025, (external link 2). And since then there has been minimal fighting between Turkey and the Kurds. In addition, the fighting between Turkey, and Syrian Kurds is not an extension of the Syrian civil war, but a separate conflict that is a part of the Kurdish–Turkish conflict.
I would also like to point out a similarity to War in Iraq (2013–2017), which ended after ISIS, the main belligerent in the conflict lost all territorial control, and it moved onto to the Islamic State insurgency in Iraq (2017–present). Which can be applied here, as the only remaining conflict is the pro-Assadist and Baath Party loyalists' insurgency. @MUHA1222 and GN22: Ecrusized (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose there is an ongoing offensive in western syria. Plus we aren't the ones who determine if the war is over or not, that's the job of WP:RS 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian civil war is over due to SNA-SDF peace treaty

139.5.11.122 (talk) 12:02, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian civil war ended on March 10 2025 so it shouldn’t be shown as ongoing because now The New Syrian government signed a peace treaty with SDF on March 10 2025 and SDF merged with the new Syrian Army so this change should happen and the map should show SDF controlled territories in the New Syrian map

Not done for now: Ongoing discussion above. CMD (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

can someone provide me the link to the infobox? i wanna edit over there but i forgot the link alr Foxy Husky (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2025

The syrian civil war didn't start on March 15. This date is not correct.If we say that the beginning of the revolution is the beginning of the syrian civil war, this means it is March 18. Follow this Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_revolution 2001:8F8:1471:115D:17E4:743B:275A:E2F2 (talk) 07:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry mate but i found this newsarticle: https://www.cbsnews.com/video/marking-14-years-since-start-of-syrian-civil-war/ Foxy Husky (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Syrian_civil_war_infobox
✕
Bahnsport-Info

Kostenfrei
Ansehen