Jump to content

Talk:List of armed factions in the Syrian Civil War/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Thank u !!

I wanna thank the creator of this page because we really needed it.
one more thing we need is a Template like this Template:Armed Iraqi groups in the Iraq War and the Iraq Civil War
notes:

  • The word Syrian opposition is enough as Mujaheddin are Part of the armed opposition.
  • Kurdish Salaheddine Battalion is one of thousands why do u mention it. it's part of Al-Tawhid Brigade which consist of tens of Battalions and Al-Tawhid Brigade is part of Syrian Islamic Liberation Front which is an umbrella of many brigades one of them Al-Tawhid Brigade.
  • Al-Nusra Front is part of the international Al-Qaeda org while Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant's leader has many problems with Ayman Al-Zwahery (Al-Qaeda leader)
  • Ghuraba al-Sham Front is the group active in syria while Ghuraba al-Sham or what u call the Jihadist group ceased to exist after the death of it's leader.
  • Al-Abbas brigade is an iraqi militia so it should be under (Foreign militants)
  • as this should be a detailed page why don't we add the different groups under the name of it's umbrella organisation e.g. Ahrar al-Sham, Al-Haqq Brigade, Al-Fajr Islamic Movement ... under Syrian Islamic Front. 3bdulelah (talk) 07:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Also u may add Jund al-Sham to the list. 3bdulelah (talk) 07:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback
  • Okay, Al-Qaeda issue. Sopher99 says Al-Nusra is not part of Al-Qaeda and removed it from that category, however Al-Nusra swore allegiance to Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Does that warrant recognition as a branch of Al-Qaeda? I think it does. Also, Al-Qaeda in Iraq is a branch of Al-Qaeda, but it is also a part of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. I'm not sure how to frame this.
  • I will keep Kurdish Salaheddine Battalion and try to add detail of all brigades/groups etc involved in the war.
  • I'll add the groups you mentioned. DylanLacey (talk) 06:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks but the groups I mentioned are part of Syrian Islamic Front not Syrian Islamic Liberation Front and they are only an example. In each separate article e.g. Syrian Islamic Liberation Front and Syrian Islamic Front u will find the different groups 3bdulelah (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Different Kurd organization

There is another Kurdish organization that has fought with the YPG called the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union. I'm not sure where to put it.David O. Johnson (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union

Militarily supported by:

This is how I had it laid out, but Lothar removed it. I believe Azadi Kurdish Party is the same as the Kurdish Salaheddine Battalion which is part of Al-Tawhid Brigade which is part of the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front. Personally I think the combatant should be included twice so that all combatants can be displayed. That is, after all, the reason I created this page. DylanLacey (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This "Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union" (which is essentially defunct at this point) hasn't "fought with the YPG". It was in fact founded as a political (not military) counterweight to the power and influence of the PYD. The PYD likes to harass and intimidate Kurdish opposition parties, but to regard that as being somehow in open military conflict with the YPG and aligned with the rebels is downright ludicrous—especially now that Syrian Kurdish parties have largely set aside their differences after Qaida and allied rebels launched offensives against Kurds across the north of the country.
The inclusion of the KRG is even more laughable. Given his experiences in the mid-1990s, to think that Barzani would create a group to wage civil war among Kurds in West Kurdistan is just plain stupid. What's more, no Peshmerga have even set foot in Syria due to a political standoff between the PYD and Hewler—and the fact that the KRG does not want to risk another Kurdish civil war.
And no, Azadi is not at all the same as Salaheddine. The former is a secular political party that is in political opposition to the PYD, the latter is an Islamist armed group unequivocally integrated with the rebels. Pro-PYD media sometimes claim shadowy connections between the groups, but only because it tries to use the jash image of Salaheddine to smear the Kurdish opposition parties. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
According to the article: Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union has clashed with Popular Protection Units, has 1,500 fighters in Syria and is being militarily supported by the Kurdistan Regional Government (it is training troops for the Union). These statements are cited. Would you then agree to Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union being added to the Kurdish column with a dividing line and a note indicating clashes with the Popular Protection Units, in the way Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has been noted in regards to the Free Syrian Army? DylanLacey (talk) 07:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
No separation line. "1,500 fighters" is an old claim by only one party leader, not the entire coalition. What's more, there's no evidence that these fighters have participated in any fighting. The source says that the KRG is allegedly training fighters to be sent in, but as I have said: no Peshmerga have actually entered Syria. The "conflict" between these groups is purely political and waged in propaganda, not bullets. Right now these parties are pushing to convince the PYD to actually allow their fighters into Syria so they can fight alongside the YPG against the rebels because the PYD suppresses other parties from establishing militias. On the other side, the KRG has long since closed the sole border crossing at Simalka due to political disagreements (causing yet more disagreements at home), which means that no Peshmerga can enter Syria.
Recently, KDP-S leader Abdulhakim Bashar has even reportedly voiced support for the YPG in the latest conflict with Arab-Islamist rebels. Mustafa Cuma of one branch of the Azadi party consistently denies accusations that he collaborates with the FSA against the PYD, while the head of the other branch politely reminds the PYD that they should tone down the rhetoric to boost Kurdish unity at this critical time. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Some changes

I have added some FSA "brigades" and "batallions" not previously included. Another question is the order of apparition, specially for FSA and SILF. Should we use alphabetical order, like with SIF? Reepecheep (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Preferably they would be ordered by strength. However, in the absence of this information, alphabetical order could be employed. DylanLacey (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

What is Ghuraba al-Sham

On the list of organisations, Guraba al-Sham is grouped with the "Jihadists" and shown with a Qaeda type flag. Yet on the table and elsewhere it is charaterized as "secular" and as having fought against such groups. Can anyone explain? Qulmos Sept 26 13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sukkoth Qulmos (talk • contribs) 06:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There are two groups with the same name; they have different founding dates and different leaders.David O. Johnson (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


Army of Islam

I have made some changes in the list of sub-groups, please check them. One more question: should we add the recently created "Army of Islam" as a new branch, or is it part of SILF? Reepecheep (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it is already added here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_civil_war#Rebel_coalitions

David O. Johnson (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Coalitions section

The subgroups section of the article for the Free Syrian Army and Syrian Islamic Liberation Front contains the same info that the Rebel coalitions section would have for the FSA and the SILF if they were expanded. Perhaps we should include the total number of fighters, with a link to the subgroups section instead of duplicating the same information.David O. Johnson (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Islamic Front

SILF and SIF merged to form the Islamic Front http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25053525 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3bdulelah (talk • contribs) 15:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

North Korea

North Korea is a direct military supporter of the Syrian regime according to reliable sources, including the Telegraph. Can it be re-added? I tried to understand the reason given for its removal in the edit summary, but I couldn't understand it. Thanks DylanLacey (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

SIF and SILF

Should the information on sub-groups of the former SIF and SILF which do not belong to groups which joined Islamic Front (Syria) be included in that coalition or separately? I have reverted attempts to remove all information regarding SILF and SIF sub-groups. These actions were unexplained, unjustified and illogical. Even if the SILF and SIF do not exist anymore and the sub-groups aren't considered part of the Islamic Front a) the sub-groups still exist b) they still would be included as having historically been part of the SIF and SILF. P.S. all the information on the sub-groups of SIF and SILF is sourced. DylanLacey (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

New Coalition?

Its seems the "secular" militias (at least 46 of them) have formed a new coalition: http://notgeorgesabra.wordpress.com/2013/11/25/for-a-civil-secular-state-100-groups-unite-in-the-union-of-free-syrians/ Should we wait for some confirmation, before adding it? Reepecheep (talk) 09:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived 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: Page moved. No responses after full listing period, but the request seems logical enough for consistency with Syrian Civil War (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

List of armed groups in the Syrian civil war → List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War – The main page was just moved from "Syrian civil war" to "Syrian Civil War", there should be consistency. Charles Essie (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

Changes

I did these changes

Tajamu Fastakam , Islamic Al Nour Movement and Liwa al-Ansar 3bdulelah (talk) 17:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Armed groups fighting with Assad

These armed groups are fighting with Assad:

3bdulelah (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by attributing claims to reliable sources. Outrageous claims like "Slavic Legions" will be removed unless supported by equally hard evidence.--Kathovo talk 13:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
A Russian military-contractor group called the "Slavonic Corps" was confirmed to have been present in Syria and to have actually (if accidentally) engaged in combat. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
These allegedly "unreferenced" armed groups were referenced.
  1. ^ "Al-Qamishli: Kurdish Democratic Political Union-Syria established". Kurd Watch. 7 January 2013. Retrieved 16 July 2013.
  2. ^ Wood, Josh (6 February 2013). "Syria's Kurds try to balance security and alliances". The New York Times. Retrieved 16 July 2013.
  3. ^ Liakos, Panagiotis (29 September 2013). "Syria: Greek Nationalist Socialists fighting with Assad's regime far more dangerous than Golden Dawn". Anarkismo. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
  4. ^ Whelan, Brian (October 2013). "Are Greek Neo-Nazis Fighting for Assad in Syria?". Vice. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
  5. ^ "الحرس القومي العربي فصيل جديد من المرتزقة بعد انكشاف المشروع الفارسي". televisionOrient. Retrieved 30 December 2013.

Do any sources exist for

Here is a source 3bdulelah (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Liwa dhu al-fiqar is a questionable translation of Liqa Zulfiqar, a Shiite militia fighting in the Damascus area Jihadology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazkthul (talk • contribs) 22:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Al-Arabiya is the mouthpiece of Saudi Arabia i.e. not a reliable source. Anyway the abovementioned report is attributed to an anonymous facebook page.
Greek Neo-Nazi claim is only found in an alleged interview with an anonymous Greek blogger.
Presence of Russian mercenaries is more reliable, but it would be useful to have confirmation from reputable 3rd party sources.--Kathovo talk 16:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The Fontanka article on the Slavonic Corps is pretty in-depth and conclusive, I'm not sure what more you'd need. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Total military forces in Detailed List, and comments on the Detailed List in general

There's something wrong with the numbers here. I ran the numbers and added up all the opposition forces, and came out with 170,250 +/- 15,250, while the pro-Assad forces come out to around 443,000. That seems to be way too asymmetrical for the fighting we've seen, which has seen the rebels hold heavily contested territory such as Aleppo for around 3 years now. I understand that Al Qaeda is a master of asymmetrical warfare, but they've never been that good at holding territory. Not to mention that the Syrian forces are probably better supplied and certainly better organized than the alphabet soup rebellion.

Assad certainly does not have the forces attributed to him here, and I think I know where the error is. The source for the Syrian Armed Forces number is from an Agence France Presse story hosted on Google, quoting a breakdown of Syrian military forces from August 2013. The numbers sort of match the number given here, 319,000, although that particular number is not mentioned anywhere in the article. However, if you add up all the numbers in the article given for the active military, the paramilitary, and the reserves (but not special forces), and then divide by 2, you get 317,000, pretty close to the 319,000 written here. Since the article mentions that "The nominal pre-war strength of the army has likely been reduced by half", whoever added that number probably did divide the total count in half, although they shouldn't have, since the article is talking about existing forces and the author had already done the math. I don't see any way to get closer to 319,000, although if you try different combinations of numbers you might be able to figure it out.

But it makes no sense to count reservists as part of the active military. It also makes no sense to not count special forces, unless they're included in another count, and they don't seem to be. And the paramilitary seems to be counted again further down the list, leading to a hugely inflated number.

Also, due to the fluctuating nature of alliances on the rebel side, I have a feeling that those numbers are probably wrong as well. But someone else will have to do the grunt work on that. Truthfully, I would probably drop the whole section, since the numbers are fluctuating so rapidly as groups merge and split that there are bound to be enormous errors in there all the time. But for now I'm just editing the count for the Syrian military to be 228,000, which includes the special forces but not the paramilitary or the reserves.

This is my first time editing Wikipedia, so I'm sorry if I did something wrong. I've been told that I'm supposed to Be Bold. Thanks to everyone for taking on such a complicated but important topic.

Hystanes (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I was the person that had added the number for the Syrian Armed Forces; you are correct; the number should likely be 178,000 in addition to the 50,000 elite troops mentioned in the article. Thanks for the correction.David O. Johnson (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Syriac Union Party Edit War

Syriac Union Party and European Syriac Union (sister branch) are united Assyrianist parties. They call for shared unity and identity of all Syriac speaking people. If you check out their web-pages you will realize they do not post any of the two flags neither nor . In their demonstrations their members fly both flags in unity.

When certain members of wikipedia who do not know any of the political history of these groups and the history of the flags they are using, they just create further confusion. I would like to see neutral and more accurate icons used beside the Syriac groups involved. Remove flags that the party itself does not use and use the flag (SUP flag) that the party does use! Same thing with MFS and Sutoro ... they have not been seen with neither of the two flags (trying to avoid the politics behind them).

I propose we change the icons back to their original and neutral symbols like we see below:

These images are copyright violations, and unfortunately can't be used unless a non-copyrighted version is created such as this one for Hezbollah - DylanLacey (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
They are not copyright violations, just that the files are non-free and cannot be used in this manner, I have also removed them from this page due to WP:NFCC#9 Werieth (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Then we should not have the Syriac-Aramaean flag up because again ... you are assuming that the groups uses that flag (which is officially doesn't). They try to avoid the flag politics which goes on in the Assyrian community. If you use one flag you should use the other right beside it: (as they use in their protests/demonstrations). I think that looks silly and redundant, so then for neutrality sake I think we shouldn't use any flag that the groups don't use themselves!

Iraqi involvement

Should Iraq be included as an indirect military supporter of Syria? They have given Assad financial support, opened their airspace for Iranian Revolutionary Guard supplies and provided diesel fuel.

New coalition (Muhajireen and Ansar coalition)

Liwaa al-Umma and 3 other armed rebel groups (Liwaa al-Haq, Liwaa Omar and Jund al-Aqsa) declared their coalition. Muhajireen and Ansar coalition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1FV09Sgf04&feature=youtu.be 3bdulelah (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we should wait until there are reports put out by news organizations.David O. Johnson (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Have added them to the list of rebel groups with citations Gazkthul (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

This Article Needs To Be Reorganized

I see a lot of mistakes such as making jund Al-Aqsa in the same side with ISIS. They declared their neutrality!
This article may help us to reorganize this page. http://the-arab-chronicle.com/new-face-syrian-rebellion/

3bdulelah (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I've updated that info & a little bit more. I'll keep working on it. Do we need every group listed in the "Syrian Interim Government and allies" subsection of the "Generic list" section? It seems excessive to have all those groups included. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes we need all of them as this is the detailed page while this one is the short one. we can remove the subgroups like Jaysh al-Islam, Ahrar ash-Sham, Al-Tawhid Brigade, Suqour al-Sham Brigade and Liwaa al-Umma. Also some groups have no real presence in Syria like TTP as their fighters fight alongside other groups like ISIS or Nusra. same with Abdullah Azzam Brigades, Jund al-Sham, Fatah al-Islam, Ansar al-Islam, Muslim Brotherhood of Syria and Hizb ut-Tahrir. Some groups are no longer active like Free Iraqi Army and Ghuraba al-Sham.

3bdulelah (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

A Communist Micronation

There is a mioronation that is an allied armed group for the Syrian Government. The micronation's name is the Sangheili Union. It is a Communist Micronation located in the United States. They sent over 15,000 troops in their army. It's true, I know the person who runs the Union. The flag of the micronation - File:Flag of Sangheili Union.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:A480:298:95F1:D360:4D87:8536 (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The listing of tribes as an armed group

I don't think it is really appropriate to list tribes on a page of armed groups. Unlike any of the armed groups of the page, which are political or militant organisations that one joins, a tribe is a social group that one is born into, much like a family or ethnic group. Even if the leaders or for that matter that majority of the adult men in a tribe are affiliated with one faction or the other, there is no way of determining what affiliations all the other members of the tribe have. Gazkthul (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

What if the word 'militants' was added e.g. 'Blabla tribe militants'? (Or some other word to denote insurgents) DylanLacey (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Militants or militia would be an improvement Gazkthul (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree that it's inappropriate to list tribes on a page of armed groups. for example Shammar where put in the same side with YPG while The President of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces Ahmad Jarba is from this tribe. so I suggest the removal of tribes from this article. 3bdulelah (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Love it

All those cute little colored rectangles. I wish all articles could have those! Mindy Dirt (talk) 03:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mindy Dirt:, I didn't got you. OccultZone (Talk) 03:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Now that makes sense. It was probably unintentional, i.e. editor wasn't aware about the spam of flags. OccultZone (Talk) 04:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

According to the Syrian official authorities the "Shabiha" no exist

SPIEGEL: So you deny that the Shabiha militia was involved?

Assad: What do you mean by "Shabiha?"

SPIEGEL: This militia, the "ghosts," who are close to your regime.

Assad: This is a Turkish name. There is nothing called "Shabiha" in Syria. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/spiegel-interview-with-syrian-president-bashar-assad-a-926456.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 02:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Kuwait

There is no substantial evidence of Kuwait funding the Islamic State, it does not appear on any other article either, this should be removed. (Jurryaany (talk) 17:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC))

Borders incident with Jordan

The October 2012 Jordanian–Syrian border clash doesn't say ISIS was involved but other Islamic militants so this should be changed here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, April 2014 Jordanian–Syrian border airstrike should be added but it seems hard to do it with the same box as now. Any comments? --IRISZOOM (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

position of American-led intervention

At one point in time the intervention was listed in its own section. Someone moved it with the explanation that "The coalition is aiding the Kurds".[1] However, the coalition has carried out strikes against the Khorasan Group as well. I moved it back. Someone else moved it to its' current position [2]. I think for those reasons that the American-led intervention section should be separate.David O. Johnson (talk) 00:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

"Slavonic Forces"

Regardless of what your position is in the war, these "duped" mercenaries (who happened to be fighting in accord to their "Christian values"), who supposedly were working for "FSB" officers in the service of Assad, were not ultimately proven to be in the service of the FSB. They claim they were lied to and they risked the lives for some local Arab kingpin. This makes one suppose they were working for Assad, as being a mercenary under the current laws of Russia is outlawed and they were arrested on their arrival to Russia by the real FSB after their "failed attempt". If you find sources that prove it otherwise, please provide them below. (For more information, read the whole article in the source provided, please). --92slim (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Questions about Palmyra

Which Arab tribe inhabits Palmyra/Tadmur? I have trouble believing that the Loyalists are able to control that city (which is also almost entirely Sunni) without local allies. Would whatever local allies they have their be listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.117.203 (talk) 03:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-free image use

I have removed some non-free images from this article per WP:NFCCE because they do not have the separate, specific rationale required for use in the article per WP:NFCC#10c. These images should not be re-added until a non-free use rationale which satisfies all 10 of the criteria listed at WP:NFCCP has been added. The images I removed are listed below:

These are the ones that I found in my first pass through the article. There are probably other images still in the article which should be removed for the same reason. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Non-free images are also not allowed to be used in "tables" (i.e., infoboxes) and "galleries" for purely decorative purposes per WP:NFLISTS and WP:NFTABLES. These non-free images are immediately followed by a wikilink to the respective organization's article, which almost always uses the image in its infobox, so no addtional information is provided by using the image in this article. For this reason, using such images would not satisfy WP:NFCC#8 meaning that the acceptable non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCCP cannot be provided for this article. - Marchjuly (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

US Forces on the ground in Syria with opposition forces

Let me start by saying the article is excellent. I follow this story from the angle of rising escalations internationally and that's how I came across this page. The United States has armed special forces troops in the ground in Syria, as officially stated, described in the linked article below. I am new to Reddit. How about I add the United States as a participant in this Civil War?

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/put-boots-ground-syria-time-special-forces-troops-obama-deployed-151030211956657.html

Fourwindswi (talk) 01:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant categorization of Al Nusra and other islamist factions ; Irrelevant name of the "Kurdish" faction

I find that the categorization (subsections of the "Detailed List" section) do not really match with reality.

It's important to see that Islamist rebel factions aren't opposed to Al Nusra Front (JN), and sometimes fight altogether against FSA groups. I call them Islamist rebel factions : the term of "moderate" islamists is way too controversial IMO. This appellation isn't shared by some factions such as Russia nor Iran nor Syrian Government nor Syrian Democratic Forces... (example : https://www.rt.com/op-edge/319309-syria-moderate-rebels-isis/ ). Some western medias make critics of this appellation too : http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/apres-islamistes-moderes-voici-maintenant-djihadistes-moderes-benoit-rayski-1680579.html

The article shows that JN (Al Nusra front) is in a different category from many other islamist factions. But in fact, JN is a part of the Army of Conquest(Jaish al-Fatah) with other islamist groups, such as Ahrar ash-Sham, Jund al-Aqsa, Muslim Brotherhood of Syria, Sham Legion, Jaysh al-Sunna, Jaysh al-Nasr, Imam Bukhari Jamaat, Liwa al-Haqq. Knowing that, how can Sham Legion, Army of Mujahedeen, Ajnad al-Sham Islamic Union be classified as a part of the Free Syrian Army ? This is a wrong classification in 2016.

Also, the name of "Syrian Kurdistan and allies" category should be changed in Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which is the name of the coalition created in 2015. In fact, the former FSA group, Jaysh al-Thuwar, is now a component of the Syrian Democratic Forces, with about 3000 fighters. Al-Sanadid Forces, with about 9000 fighters, is a member of the SDF too

This is fairly important to categorize correctly so that the readers of this article can better-understand how the different factions are related to each-other.

I'm sorry for my english. As a poor french guy, I have much progress to make in foreign languages =')

--109.24.234.42 (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Reddit

Reddit is not a valid source, reddit references should be removed and replaced by more credible sources.--Catlemur (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

List of armed groups in the Iraqi Civil War

Just an information, since this page is very actively edited. A "brother-page" was quite newly created and could need your help, if you know already much about the thematics around Daesh.

The Iraqi civil war is already mentioned in the section "spillover" here, but this one also needs to be fixed. The Political Council for the Iraqi Resistance speaks only for a small part of the Sunni rebels.

A very helpful page for the Sunni insurgents beyond ISIL is this one: http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Sunni%20Insurgency%20in%20Iraq.pdf

Greetings, --Ermanarich (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Humanitarian and non-armed assistance to Syrians

This is a list of "Armed Groups", so i don't think humanitarian assistance or non-armed assistance to general Syrian population (within whatever party's area) can be valid for inclusion in this list. We have Humanitarian assistance during the Syrian Civil War article for this purpose.GreyShark (dibra) 13:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that the content is WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:UNDUE. Per WP:TITLE, the list is proscribed to armed groups (and those who provide direct military aid such as armaments) and is not intended to be an extensive list of every group involved. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Harpy, I've clashed with you before and your constant patronizing behavior borders WP:HARASSMENT and WP:ADMINABUSE. It is outright nonsensical to delete important information regarding international support to the various belligerents. This stuff is often mentioned at the infoboxes of war articles as a common practice, such as at Korean War and Vietnam War, which for some reason is not present at the Syrian Civil War infobox. I'd lovely like to move this deleted information to the infobox of the article Syrian Civil War if the page was not semi-protected, considering that it might hurt certain sensibilities to contain this information here. There is nothing WP:UNDUE in stating the non-lethal contributions to the belligerents of BOTH sides from the international political community, you're rather being WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --87.63.114.210 (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, desist from your personal attacks. This is an article talk page, not a WP:BATTLEGROUND for pushing your personal opinion, just as it is not a venue for my personal opinions. Be WP:CIVIL and comment on content, not the contributor. Secondly, I am not an administrator, and have never purported to be one. Finally, this "stuff" ( [sic]) does not belong in the list's content. It is a WP:SAL, not an article or MOS:INFOBOX on the Syrian Civil War. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, WP:NPA? Pot, meet kettle. Secondly, I suggested and still suggest that the deleted content be moved to the infobox on the article Syrian Civil War, exactly like the case of the infoboxes of Korean War and Vietnam War. I cannot do this, as the article is semi-protected. Wikipedia should be consistent and follow common practice, cf. my examples - instead of just deleting it. --87.63.114.210 (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Then take it to the talk page of the relevant article and request that it be added (courteously) with your rationale. You're on the wrong talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Why should I do so, if we reach consensus here? It is possible to create a link to this discussion on that talkpage, otherwise it is just bureaucratic obstruction. We should really just deal with the matter now, or no one pays interest to it later. --87.63.114.210 (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:CHOICE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Smart way to create a Wikipedia elite with semi-locks and discriminatory rules like WP:DTTR. So much for the 'open editing' of Wikipedia, I'm very disappointed. Maybe an editor inside the club will initiate the necessary changes, otherwise you can all piss off. I won't waste energy anymore on this. --87.63.114.210 (talk) 22:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe if you had presented your case without the unnecessary headbutting, you would have gotten somewhere. Editors rarely get anywhere when they focus too much on the contributor, and not on the content. clpo13(talk) 23:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Maybe if Irina Harpy hadn't been WP:WIKIHOUNDING me (I have a past of disputes with her regarding Ukraine topics) and I was discussing with another editor, things wouldn't run amok and I'd absolutely be focused on the content. --87.63.114.210 (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Opposition coalitions section

The "Opposition coalitions" section has been developed with barely a reliable source to be seen. We have a protracted list of red links and nothing to verify them against. I honestly think that these detailed tables need to come down until they are sourced. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Massive deletion

Hello everyone,

I just saw that most of the page has been deleted lately. This is absolutely crazy, since edits in such a dimensions should never be made without a consensus on the talk page. So we will first discuss it here which facts are necessary and which are expendable. It can't be that one simpply comes here and do it without discussing anything!--Ermanarich (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Twitter sources

Twitter sources are not allowed. Beshogur (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Create article

Can someone create the article for Katibat al Tawhid wal Jihad? (Tavhid wa Jihod). Another similar group Imam Bukhari Jamaat already has an article. Twitter sources are reliable if they are from notable people or organizations.

https://twitter.com/Weissenberg7/status/774330619983564800

http://thelineofsteel.weebly.com/news/katibat-al-tawhid-wal-jihad

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/09/uzbek-group-pledges-allegiance-to-al-nusrah-front.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7CIHW3lOy0

Rajmaan (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that both Uzbek groups joined Jabhat al Nusra which is now Jabhat Fateh al Sham. According to this journalist now there is a "Turkestan Jamaat" in Jabhat Fateh Al sham I supposed this means future information will either go into subsections on Nusra or JFS?Rajmaan (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Right. I also forgot about that. It would be better to create new sections for the Uzbek groups in the Nusra and JFS articles. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Tel Aran Martyrs Brigade & Kafr Saghir Martyrs Brigade

Hello,

there are two Kurdish militias around Aleppo, which are not clearly pro-Assad or pro-SDF, the Tel Aran Martyrs Brigade & Kafr Saghir Martyrs Brigade. Links about them are these: [3], [4] and [5].

Where would you put them?

Regards, Ermanarich (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Bad sourcing

I've removed a lot of sources on this article, primarily twitter accounts, youtube videos, and reddit threads. All of these with notable exceptions in the twitter category are unreliable sources. I've taken care to keep some of the twitter sources which I recognize, but at best, these fall under the questionable sources part of WP:RS because they have no editorial oversight and their strongest case seems to be that they have been around a long time. The way I edit here is that if info is not covered by a reliable source, it should not be included because Wikipedia's central tenet is verifiability, that is to say that the information on armed groups participating could for example be everything from hoax edits, to good-faith but misinformed edits. Eik Corell (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

: I'm not disputing your definition of bad sources, but the article is now missing several important groups - for example, Tahrir al-Sham - the main non-IS jihadist group. This is a big deal. Perhaps we should revert the article to the way it was and then work together to find replacement sources - the tiny groups only reported on questionable social media accounts will be removed, while notable groups (that have been reported on by reliable sources but happened to have social media sources listed on this wiki article) will remain with better sources. Does that sound coherent? As it is now, the article is pretty much broken, and anyone happening to read it will be massively misinformed. Bulbajer (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Nevermind, I see you're already adding them back. Bulbajer (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

It's quite easy to find reliable sources for groups in Syria, actually. Usually all it takes is a single Google search. Unfortunately, there's still that one user who keeps spamming SCW-related pages with Twitter and Reddit links. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Over-inflated table

We have plenty of countries and groups which are not present in the Syrian Civil War infobox per discussion, so should not be present here as well - for example North Korea, Egypt and Belarus do not have direct relation to this conflict, so they should be removed.GreyShark (dibra) 13:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Free Syrian Army and Turkish-backed Free Syrian Army

I don't know enough about this topic to think of adding anything to the page, but I came across these pages and added them as See Alsos. Perhaps someone with more knowledge may like to comment, remove the See Alsos and/or add them to the page somewhere? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Spliting the Rebels in two groups

Hiyat Tahir al sham and a number of other Rebel groups have had for a number of years an alternative government to that of the free Syrian army. It's called the Syrian Salvation Army. There have also been a number of inter-rebel conflicts, thus I believe creating a new Colum for the groups under the subheading Salafist Jihadist groups would be Appropriate. User:Aldan-2 User talk:Aldan-2 1:39, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Even though they are separate groups they fight together whenever there is an offensive against them, or if they are launching one. I decline. Jim7049 (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
While I agree in principle, I think it is best to keep both opposition governments in the same column, with a dash between them and footnotes saying that they have both cooperated with each other and fought each other. The infobox can only go so far to reflect a very complex reality, and ideally we should be able to have an indefinite number of columns, but in practice that would occupy the entire width of the page. That being said, the Syrian Interim Government and the Salvation Government should have been mentioned in the infobox a long time ago. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Split/Merge

The discussion: Talk:Syrian_Civil_War#Splitting_"Belligerents"_and_merging_it_with_"List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 21:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 February 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)


List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War → Belligerents of the Syrian Civil War – Agreed upon here - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 19:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

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.

@Fitzcarmalan: unfortunately there was a redirect already in the spot. I believe only admins can move pages over ones that already exist. - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 21:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Completely removing groups

@Purijj: I don't think groups (even defunct ones) should be completely removed from the list so I've added a "Former Belligerents" section with a link to that group. - MTWEmperor (talk • contribs) 00:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

MTWEmperor, good idea, agreed.Purijj (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
All groups should be kept, including former. When the war is over, it doesn't mean we delete the belligerents. If some pull out of the conflict, they should still count.GreyShark (dibra) 21:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Israel

Israel admitted to funding Syrian rebels, could someone add them or should I? Hibsiwakawam (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I see you added it, thanks Farbne (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:53, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Belligerents 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 Belligerents 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 "defect":

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⚡ 11:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Belligerents 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 Belligerents 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 "interview":

Reference named "blitz":

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. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Belligerents 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 Belligerents 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 "test":

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. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Belligerents 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 Belligerents 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 "four":

Reference named "almasdarnews.com":

Reference named "leverrier-8dec13":

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. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:02, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Belligerents 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 Belligerents 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 "Damascus":

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. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_armed_factions_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War/Archive_1&oldid=1222730283"