Talk:2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites

Ethnic cleansing?

So sources aren't clear about this yet. Should we say this is ethnic cleansing. I'm not too sure myself since sources don't explicitly state this (as far as I know, I would need to check) but on the other hand, Alawites are an ethnoreligious group, and massacres targeting them could reasonably be called ethnic cleansing as a result. Genabab (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I am changing the wording to sectarian violence, sectarian violence can also include ethnic cleansing as a motive.

See

- https://www.dw.com/en/syria-sees-worst-day-of-violence-since-ouster-of-assad/a-71852125 "Sectarian violence reported in Alawite strongholds"

- https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/07/middleeast/syria-army-assad-deadly-clashes-intl/index.html "... areas where support among Syrian Alawites for Assad was strong and which has seen outbreaks of sectarian violence over the past three months."

- https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czxnwrqey4go "Residents say they have been targets of sectarian violence, with one Alawite woman telling BBC Arabic that many Syrians are "scared" regardless of if they were on the coast or in the capital." 𝙲𝚊𝚌𝚝𝚞𝚜 𝚁𝚘𝚗𝚒𝚗 (talk) 13:13, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cactus Ronin That seems like a good idea. Genabab (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Massacres doesnt mean "ethnic cleansing". "Ethnic cleansing" implies forced displacement of civilian population carried out by a military force.

Right now, what is going on is an armed insurgency by Assad loyalists who want to overthrow the Syrian transitional governmemt. This has led to the formation of local militias, some of which are targeting Alawites.

Syrian security forces are fighting Assadist militants, but where is the evidence that Syrian security forces are involved in forced displacement of Alawite civilians from a town or village? Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:16, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

@Shadowwarrior8 Please stop with the sectarianism. Genabab (talk) 13:45, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Editors shouldnt engage in ad hominem attacks. Focus on content, not the contributor. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 23:58, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

> but where is the evidence that Syrian security forces are involved

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/over-300-alawite-civilians-killed-by-syria-security-forces-allies-since-thursday-monitor-says/

"A Syria war monitor reports that more than 300 Alawite civilians have been killed in recent days by the security forces and their allies, as authorities clash with militants loyal to the former government of Bashar al-Assad."

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hundreds-killed-syrian-crackdown-alawite-region-war-monitor-says-2025-03-08/

"Gunmen and security forces linked to Syria's new Islamist rulers have killed more than 340 people, including women and children from the Alawite minority, in the country's coastal region since Thursday, the head of a war monitor said."

"The reported scale of the violence, which includes reports of an execution-style killing of dozens of Alawite men in one village, puts into further question the Islamist ruling authority's ability to govern in an inclusive manner, which Western and Arab capitals have said is a key concern."

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250308-340-alawite-civilians-killed-by-syrian-security-forces-allies-monitor

"340 Alawite civilians killed by Syrian security forces, allies: monitor" Genabab (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

Those are all monitor claims. It’s clear it’s militias linked to former opposition, but not units under command of new government. I agree with Genabab and CactusRonin that “sectarian violence” is the right term too. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Request protection

I request this page to be under protection in order to prevent vandalism and misinformation 2603:7001:7340:33:10A:A0B2:386F:5A3A (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

lots of changes recently, agreed 185.127.127.26 (talk) 11:17, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Loyal to Assad?

Many sources are claiming the militants are loyal to Assad. However, there isn't sufficient evidence to fully support the claim that they‘re specifically loyal to Assad. Not every Alawite who fights has to be specifically loyal to Assad. Perhaps a more accurate description would be former Assad’s soldiers. Or that some and not all are loyal to Assad. Whatsupkarren (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I wonder if the children who had their eyes gouged out were secretly Assad sympathizers... 2001:610:450:A1:0:0:1:5A (talk) 18:06, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

From the many videos you can find online... i don't think children and old women are Assad militants ElijahUHC (talk) 22:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Which bit of text are you referring to? The civilian victims obviously shouldn’t be described as loyal to Assad, but the militias involved in the initial insurgency obviously were BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley

Do you have evidence to prove they’re obviously loyal to Assad? I’ve been following Miqdad Ftiha (founder of Coastal Shield Brigade) for a while, and he’s not that wild about Bashar al Assad, he doesn’t post videos or photos of Assad or even talk about him. He’s just against the government which he still calls Jabhat al Nusra. Assad has almost completely lost his popularity among his thugs. Whatsupkarren (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you that’s interesting. How would you describe the stance/ideology Whatsupkarren? I’ve been thinking we lack the right term in the current article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually quite a few sources use “Assadist” or “Assad loyalist”. Couple examples:

• Yassin-Kassab, Robin (2025-03-10). "Despite coastal massacres, there is still hope for the new Syria". The New Arab. Retrieved 2025-03-15.
• Carter, Brian (2025-03-10). "Institute for the Study of War". Institute for the Study of War. Retrieved 2025-03-15.
• Christou, William (2025-03-07). "Syrian security forces execute 125 civilians in battle against Assad loyalists". the Guardian. Retrieved 2025-03-15.
• "Hundreds killed as Syria security forces battle al-Assad loyalists". Al Jazeera. 2025-03-08. Retrieved 2025-03-15.
• Goldbaum, Christina (2025-03-07). "More Than 140 Killed in Clashes Between Syrian Forces and Assad Loyalists". The New York Times. Retrieved 2025-03-15.

BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

That's because that claim is just HTS propaganda ment to justify and legitimize their genocidal actions and sadly many western media unironically parrots it 2A02:587:E83D:EF4:3D2C:F0FC:DCF9:D259 (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

this is OR, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a journalistic publisher, if RS are saying something, unless you have a more reliable source stating it is propaganda that claim is invalid. WikiNerd202224 (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Personal attacks on editors
The people doing the killing are the new government followers, not Assad's suporters. Please leave your bias out of this Apeholder (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC) Please assume good faith, refrain from making personal accusations against other editors, and focus on the content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• Former Syrian military does not mean "loyal to Assad", you'll be hard pressed to find any former Assad-supporters who would support him after he fled to Russia, the uprising was to take control in local areas (just like the Kurds and Druze) and protect the coastal population from killings that had taken place leading up to the wider massacres. FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  This formulation is, however, widely used by RSs. E.g:

  https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czxnwrqey4go.amp

  https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna196392

  https://www.thetimes.com/world/middle-east/article/hundreds-massacred-in-syria-after-crackdown-on-assad-loyalists-232wzm79s

  https://www.ft.com/content/e702c71d-a56a-4eda-baad-3800c6ac2a76 BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:34, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but none of them base it on anything specific. Anyone who tries to defend themselves against the new regime are conveniently termed "Assad loyalists". FunkMonk (talk) 12:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Framing

The massacres are framed as a unprompted consequence of STG's provocation and not that of pro-Assad forces. Daseyn (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

How specifically? LordOfWalruses (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Because that's exactly what happened all claims about regime remnants are just HTS propaganda 2A02:587:E83D:EF4:3D2C:F0FC:DCF9:D259 (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

This is objectively not true: what proof do you have to offer that these claims are propaganda of HTS (a group that doesn't even exist anymore)? LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Extrajudicial massacre?

What's up with the banner on top talking about "extrajudicial massacres"? Is there such a thing as a judicial massacre? It's quite strange and I am opposed to this obscurantist vocabulary being used to downplay the genocide here. JDiala (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree. “Sectarian violence” would be better. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Should the article title be adjusted?

Since the article also covers the massacres that took place in December 2024, shouldn't the title be "2024-2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites"? David O. Johnson (talk) 08:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the earlier period is the background and the 6-10 March period is the focus? But I think violence in general should be covered and not massacres specifically BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I support this idea. LordOfWalruses (talk) 03:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Rename page to "2025 Alawite Genocide"

This is genocide. Syrian Sunnis who oppose the genocide are getting killed as well. Electos242 (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I think we can create a redirect from that to the article as an alternative name, since some demonstrations started using that term. However, these are not enough to justify a page move. If there are any RS or organizations that use the term, please share. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

There are now a bunch of organisations cited in the lead make this claim but most of them are pretty marginal organisations, and I don’t think it’s due for the lead let alone the title BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Not trying to deny the severity of the killings, but has any source officially called it a genocide? If not, I don't think we can make that classification ourselves. LordOfWalruses (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The UN has begun warning of genocide. The Lemkin Institute of Genocide Prevention has also issued a statement. SOHR has also described the massacres as genocidal. There may be a couple more. 20marcor (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

It would be significant if the UN described it as genocide. Can you link to them doing so please?

Personally, I don't think the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention is notable enough for the lead, and SOHR issues are being discussed elsewhere on this page but their use of the term also doesn't make it lead-worthy. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The Human Rights and Humanitarian Action Monitoring Committee, which brings together 13 Syrian human rights NGOs, civil society organizations and opposition figures, has published a preliminary 15-page report accusing the HTS regime of genocide. https://fhmsihr.org/eng/preliminary-report/ Skr561 (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source. That is a self-published source from a political chief of the SDC (a Kurdish seperatist group dominated by PYD; i.e, Syrian affiliate of PKK) group. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

upd0

Ensure the use of "transitional" consistently: "transitional government" instead of "transitional" Maintain the correct tense and pluralization: Replace "massacres" with "mass killings and massacres" Umabolinhabrancaboke (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

"Mass killings and massacres" is way too redundant. LordOfWalruses (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Assadists didn’t kill anyone

The hts people literally made this one up with planted evidence they planted weapons and equipment used by syrian arab army and then made false claims 176.72.101.244 (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Source? LordOfWalruses (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Democracy Now! covered it yesterday, oh wait, let me guess, they're not a RS but MSNBC and the mainstream media are... Apeholder (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, Democracy Now! is listed as "no consensus" at the Perennial sources list.

[1] David O. Johnson (talk) 11:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Exactly: as @David O. Johnson says, they haven’t been verified as a reliable source or not, and judging by their strong bias, I’d say that they aren’t. LordOfWalruses (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Literally every piece of evidence about the massacre confirms its all HTS what more could you possibly ask for? 2A02:587:E83D:EF4:3D2C:F0FC:DCF9:D259 (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

That is not true: there are many sources (including within this article) surrounding massacres committed by non-STG groups, and HTS doesn't even exist anymore after it merged with the Ministry of Defense.

If "literally every piece of evidence" confirms that it's all HTS and that this disbanded rebel group faked all of the massacres committed by it, why don't you show some to me? If there's really that much evidence, it can't be hard to give me at least one URL. LordOfWalruses (talk) 02:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Hts is short hand for syrian goverment it’s like saying taliban instead of islamic emirare of afghanistan 176.72.101.123 (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Do RS use the term massacre?

Do RS use the term massacre to call this event a massacre? Most sources don't. AP News calls it "clashes...and revenge killings"[2]. BBC News also calls it "revenge killings" and "mass killings".[3] France 24's headline calls it a massacre,[4], but headlines aren't considered reliable per WP:HEADLINE and the body doesn't use the word massacre anywhere. The New Arab does call it massacre in its own voice[5]. Middle East Monitor calls it "mass killings[6]. Lots of sources simply call it "violence", such as NBC News, though I admit that sounds like a euphemism.

I would probably propose "mass killings" as a title instead of "massacre".VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Disagree, it is an obvious massacre directed towards the Alawites. its the literal definition of a "massacre" ElijahUHC (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@ElijahUHC can you cite some more WP:RS that use massacre in their own voice in the body of the article? If not, I'll propose an RM soon.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

mass killings is more in line with sources than Massacre, I am unable to find any sources that use the word massacre, kind reminder to many wikipedians here that WP:OR policy applies, I have seen lots of WP:OR violations in this entire article. The events in this article are obviously very politically and emotionally heavy especially on those affected by them however, Wikipedia is not the place for your political opinion, @ElijahUHC , this is a space for recording factual information as provided by the RS' and trustworthy published Journalists and organizations who's jobs it is to classify these events correctly and per objective truth. (~~~~) WikiNerd202224 (talk) 04:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

• Yes, they overwhelmingly do. FunkMonk (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Motive change

There have been instances where regime remnants have killed Alawites that are not loyal to them, and a source mentioned on the page itself has stated that over 200 civilians have been killed by regime remnants. [7]. I believe this should be included in the motive. Sentbuddy02 (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

It’s silly to attribute the Assadists’ militias motive to a claim by the president. What do RSs say their motive is? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Bob. We shouldn't cite any President or leader from the both side as this is deeply inaccurate and removes the neutrality of this article. I believe the source "As Claimed by the Syrian President" should be removed as it damages the neutrality and factuality of this article. DX2004 (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Amend title to include Christians?

As it has been shown that Christian civilians have been targeted as well should the title of the page be changed to "2025 massacres of Syrian Alawites and Christians" or should a separate page for the persecution of Christians be made? Red Phoenician (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm oblivious, but I haven't seen any sources/info on massacres against Christians. If there are any, I would recommend making it a separate page or renaming the article "2025 western Syria massacres." LordOfWalruses (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

There are numerous reports of Christians being killed by forces affiliated with the government. Sources include obituaries published on X, photos and names of the dead targeted in Latakia and Tartous regions. The primary civilian death were Alawites, however a few Christian deaths were reported. I agree with LordOfWalruses regarding renaming the article, however that is up to public discussion. DX2004 (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, there was a Kurdish medical student was killed in Latakia city, however that was reportedly accidental. The targeted civilian death were primarily Alawites, despite a few reported non-Alawite deaths, so perhaps keeping the original title is more accurate. DX2004 (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the title should just be renamed to “2025 Western Syria massacres” as numerous RS including France24 and Reuters confirm that Christians are being targeted and are fleeing their homes alongside Alawites 98.152.126.154 (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Only his identity as a Christian saved him and his family, he said. One GSS officer had discouraged the other militants from killing them, he added.

1101 (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Assadists in Perpetrator box (includes discussion of SNHR's reliability as a source and the scope of the title)

I'm not sure how you can include them in the perpetrator box. It defies even simple reason that the overwhelmingly Alawite insurgents would kill their own ethnic group. The source it comes from moreover is Al Araby, a Qatari website and can not to be trusted on this topic. Fakeloser (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

If you simply click on the reference, you can see that SNHR has reported at least 211 civilians were killed by pro-Assadists and Baath party insurgents. Ecrusized (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ecrusized That violates Wikipedia Policy:scope. The page is called "massacres of Syrian Alawites" and not masscares in Syria full stop. It's not the place for it. Genabab (talk) 10:11, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the 211 civilians killed by pro-Assad forces are entirely non-Alawites? I find that hard to believe since the vast majority (+90%) of the population in coastal Syria are Alawites. Even if this is somehow proven, then the article would need to be moved to March 2025 massacres in Syria or something else. Ecrusized (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

> Are you suggesting that the 211 civilians killed by pro-Assad forces are entirely non-Alawites?

Initial sourcing on these events reported killings of Sunni civilians and government officials (who are primarily Sunni). So yes, that is what I am suggesting. Doubly so when the source in question doesn't even say that any Alawites were killed.

Bottom line is, if the source doesn't even mention Alawites. Then I fail to see its relevance here. @Ecrusized Genabab (talk) 10:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

That is an extremely dubious claim. And even in the lowest probability that there were zero Alawites, among the two hundred civilians killed by pro-Assad insurgents, not mentioning them at all in this article would clearly be an attempt to sway this article towards a certain viewpoint. Making this article extremely partisan and non-neutral. I will simply not agree with such an edit on any article where one sides atrocities are turned a blind eye towards. If your main concern is the title "Massacre of Syrian Alawites then the way to solve this issue is a simple page move to "2025 Massacres in western Syria" or something as such. Instead of removing key components of this article and misleading readers towards a viewpoint. Ecrusized (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ecrusized

> That is an extremely dubious claim

Then can you find me a source which says Ba'athist militias killed Alawites for being Alawites?

> , among the two hundred civilians killed by pro-Assad insurgents, not mentioning them at all in this article would clearly be an attempt to sway this article towards a certain viewpoint

No it wouldn't. Since the page is literally called massacres of Syrian Alawites. .

> Making this article extremely partisan and non-neutral

I'm sure that's how you see it, but to anyone else it violated WP:Scope. If you really really want to get this story out there, why don't you stick it in the Western Syria Clashes page? Or on the March 2025 Western Syria clashes page. That is infinitely more appropriate.

There is precedent for this. For example the page for the Holocaust only mentions 6,000,000 jews being killed in the infobox. And not the slavs and Roma and others that were also killed.

> then the way to solve this issue is a simple page move to "2025 Massacres in western Syria" or something as such.

Which is not something you can just do. You'd have to do an RFC for it, and you don't have the consensus for that. As it stands, WP:Scope and precedence goes aginst Ba'athis being included, so they just shouldn't.

If you want another solution, maybe open up an RFC? Genabab (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I've added a dubious tag to this in the article to generate more discussion. Ecrusized (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

That's a good idea Genabab (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

That dubious tag makes it seem like the report is fake, that 211 people didn't get killed by Pro Assad insurgents. Midgetman433 (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@Midgetman433 If you want that to be portrayed, just add it to the clashes page. These killings are about Alawites. and thus mentioning insurgents is irrelevant Genabab (talk) 09:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Of Course its relevant, the Assadist insurgent leader(Miqdad Fatiha, leader of the neo-Baathist 'Coastal Shield Brigade' paramilitary force) made a threat to kill Alawites who cooperated with the government. Here you can listen to his video yourself.

He says he has their names, social media accounts, and personal information, and reminded them that “tomorrow may come sooner than you might expect.”

https://x.com/amahaf2/status/1898473515105370148

Idk why this is shocking to people, The Insurgency in Iraq killed Sunnis who cooperated with the Occupation and Post Saddam Govt in Baghdad. This is not a new phenomena.

Kind of silly to say, no the Alawites killed by Miqdad Fatiha's group don't count, only those killed by other groups count. Midgetman433 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I would support a name change, and other editors in previous sections on this page have said the same. I’d argue for “sectarian violence” rather than “massacres” or “mass killings” in order to cover all the events and not just the deaths. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

'All the events'? The bulk of civilian deaths were Alawites who were killed for being Alawites, this has been documented not just by SOHR (which you evidently don't believe to be a reliable source, which is fair enough) but by fighters aligned with/linked to the Syrian transitional government responsible for the killings, a number of whom have since been arrested by said government. To change the article's name to anything else would be obfuscating what happened. Sisuvia (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. The overwhelming majority of people who were killed were innocent Alawite civilians Genabab (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

By "all the events" I mean mass killings, attacks where individuals were killed, and attacks where nobody was killed. I also mean both the incidents in which non-Alawite civilians were killed and incidents where only Alawites were killed. Isn't it better to cover the whole situation, rather than leave stuff out because it doesn't fit the arbitrary title. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, since the overwhelming majority of those killed were Alawites as part of a repression by the state's army, no it isn't. It obfuscates what actually happened. Genabab (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Then I urge you to go and rename every article about the massacres towards Sunnis in Syria to "massacre of Syrian Sunnis", since non of them mention Sunni in the title. FleetingClarity (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

How would it be obfuscation? Look at the list of massacres in Syria, Bayda and Baniyas massacres, Hama massacre 1982, those were exclusively anti-Sunni massacres, was it obfuscation to call these massacres by regional names instead of "1982 massacre of Sunni Syrians"? Meanwhile, both Alawites and Sunnis died in these massacres (232 by insurgents according to SNHR), why call this one specifically "Massacre of Syrian Alawites"? FleetingClarity (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

There's no reasonable grounds to cite the SNHR reporting. How they have come up with this figure, why no other source on the ground has corroborated it and why there's has been no videos of such massacres by "Pro-Assad" remnants means that for the sake of neutrality we shouldn't be referencing it.

Those articles actually do mention sectarian reasons for violence. The reason it's not in the lead or title was because that was a primarily political eruption of violence to do with Syrian islamism/the Muslim brotherhood not directly linked to ethnicity or sect. Re the Hama massacre anyways.

We are describing this as an ethnic massacre because of the fact there is 1st hand sources showing HTS and other fighters directly saying they are targeting people because they are Alawites. Fakeloser (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Neither SOHR nor SNHR are very reliable, but they don't usually outright lie, rather they exaggerate or downplay numbers depending on the side or have selective reporting. There absolutely have been massacres against Sunni civilians, we at least know of a massacre in a Sunni mosque in Jableh city that killed 10, and of an attack against a hospital. Are we really to believe that the regime remnants of the 4th division who are known for their atrocities are suddenly above killing civilians now? We will get more details from more reputable orgs soon, but so far both SNHR and SOHR are used in this article, so let's not be selective about using them.

These massacres are also primarily political eruption of violence to do with Assadism/Regime remnants, Alawites are targeted for the perceived association with the Assad regime just like Sunnis are targeted for their perceived association with the Muslim brotherhood, it's a perfect one-to-one scenario, I cannot understand how you cannot see it. What about the Bayda and Baniyas massacres also? Those were triggered because of the exact same scenario, rebels killed SAA/NDF soldiers which prompted them to massacre Sunnis for their perceived association with the rebels, sectarian slogans aplenty. FleetingClarity (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

To add to the points FleetingClarity has already made:

Re: How they have come up with this figure, why no other source on the ground has corroborated it and why there's has been no videos of such massacres by "Pro-Assad" remnants means that for the sake of neutrality we shouldn't be referencing it.: SNHR include a methodology section in their report on the massacres, spelling out how they come up with their figures (triangulating firm verification), in contrast to SOHR which hasn't. Where they have video or photographic evidence they say they are not publishing it for obvious reasons but will share it with any media or human rights org that asks, which seems responsible. What Fakeloser seems to be asking for is us to do original research to get primary sources (videos, fighters' voices) which is not how Wikipedia works. We have two problematic sources that are at odds with each other and should neutrally report what they both say, seek more reliable sources, and update with better sources as the dust settles. It's not complicated. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@FleetingClarity As I said, the overwhelming majority of deaths have been Alawite civillians. While some Sunnis died, almost all of those Sunni deaths were attacks on military personnel. Hence, obfuscation. Genabab (talk) 11:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

In the massacres I mentioned, a 100% or close to a 100% of the deaths were Sunni, hence why we should go and rename every massacre to "massacre of Sunnis" if we are to be consistent. FleetingClarity (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@FleetingClarity Feel free to do that. I have no objections to it. But I fail to see what it has to do with this. Genabab (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

You are claiming that naming it anything other than "Alawite massacres" is obfuscation, this is obviously not the case, The Hama, Baniyas and Bayda massacres are named after regions rather than the targeted ethnic group, was that obfuscation? clearly not, it's mentioned in the body of those articles as well as this one that the motive was sectarian.

Why insist on naming this article specifically "Alawite massacres" when all it does is prevent the mention of massacres committed by the regime remnants? That seems like actual obfuscation to me. FleetingClarity (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

> The Hama, Baniyas and Bayda massacres are named after regions rather than the targeted ethnic group

@FleetingClarity that's the Common Name for those massacres (mainly because they were concentrated in one city or town). Kinda like the Babi Yar Massacre in Ukraine. It's called Babi Yar because it happened in Babi Yar.

Compare and contrast with the page Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. Where the killing of Poles is highlighted alongside the region where it happened, even though non-Poles were also killed.

Not only is that the Common Name for the event, it's also used in that way to describe a series of connected massacres in a wider geographical region. That's the crucial difference.

So basically it's called this because:

1. Most sources highlight the massacres of Alawites, so it fits Common Name Wikipedia Policy

2. It was not concentrated in a specific town or city. Genabab (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

That seems like very good reasoning, but what you haven't shown is that the term "massacres of Syrian Alawites" is a common name reliable sources use. Flicking through the sources' headlines, I see "Syria/n clashes" (NYT, CNN, L'Orient Today), "Fighting in Northwest Syria", "Deadly Syria clashes" (Guardian), "deadly clashes" and "brutal clashes" (Al-Jazeera), and similar. Only one article - in the The New Arab - has "massacres" in its headline. BobFromBrockley (talk) 07:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley I managed to find a few sources that use the term massacre in the title, or extensively in the body (or something close to it):

1. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/17/middleeast/syria-massacre-alawite-minority-intl-invs/index.html

2. https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/focus/20250321-exclusive-syria-s-latakia-province-still-reeling-from-massacres-of-alawites

3. https://newlinesmag.com/first-person/massacres-on-the-syrian-coast/

4. https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20250310-massacre-of-1-500-in-alawite-heartland-casts-doubt-on-new-syrian-government-s-ability-to-rule

5. https://www.npr.org/2025/03/09/nx-s1-5322458/syria-revenge-killings-alawites-latakia "The Observatory characterized many of the killings as executions and massacres, carried out in revenge against the Alawite community, which made up Assad's traditional base of support. "

I know of quite a few more, but I should ask if you find these convincing examples first Genabab (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Quick correction: I meant to say use the term massacre of Alawites (or targeting Alawites, or whatever variation may have been used) Genabab (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The first three are convincing. These are exactly the sort of reports that would need to predominate for us to see “massacre” or “massacres” as the common name.

The fourth is less convincing. It uses the word massacre as a verb (“hundreds massacred”) the nouns for the whole event (the subject of the article) is just “violence”. It does quote an analyst calling it a “mass killing” - but also a “coordinated attack by remnants of the Assad regime”.

The names in the fifth one are “clashes and acts of revenge”, “intense fighting between forces associated with Syria's new government and those loyal to the deposed dictator” and “the conflict”. The word massacre is firmly put into SOHR’s voice, and makes it clear that this is only some of the killings: “The Observatory characterized many of the killings as executions and massacres”.

So I think I’m more convinced now that “massacres” is not the common name; “clashes” or “violence” is. BobFromBrockley (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

> So I think I’m more convinced now that “massacres” i

@Bobfrombrockley That doesn't make any sense. The majority of linked sources (3-4 out of 5) use terms you find more or less convincing. But the 5th one doesn't and that makes you more convinced massacre is the wrong name? Genabab (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

This discussion has exceeded its scope. Y'all should start another for the massacres. Theofunny (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Who we call “perpetrators” depends on what is being perpetrated. If the title demands we cover just massacres of Alawites then Assadists probably shouldn’t be in the perp list; if it’s the sectarian killings in general then of course they should. (I feel we have a somewhat sectarian article if we have a restrictive title that means we only cover killings by one side.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley The issue is the overwhelming majority of those civilians who were killed were Alawites killed by the Syrian government and its affiliates. So I'm not sure why it would be Sectarian. Genabab (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Four out of five per SOHR, three out of five per SNHR, are civilians or former regime people

(including Alawites but also some Christians and some others) so maybe yes a majority -- but not so overwhelming a majority that the minority is negligible. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley What if we just made a new page for massacres of Sunnis by Assadist militias? Again, even though Assadist militias killed Sunnis, the page *is* called massacres of Syrian Alawites. So listing their killings here would fall outside the article's scope.

But doing this would address both of our concerns. It makes it clear that Ba'athists did not attack Alawites, while also showing that they did attack Sunnis. Genabab (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

That’s not a bad suggestion but I feel we’d have to repeat a lot of material between the two articles and I’m not sure the killing of Sunnis in this moment is notable enough for an article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley Around 200+ Sunnis have reportedly been killed. that's definitely notable. Smaller incidents have had pages made about them, so I'm not sure why the same shouldn't happen here Genabab (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

And for repeating material. Oh well? That's not a big price to pay to solve a glaring problem like this Genabab (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:2025_massacres_of_Syrian_Sunnis here is a link to the draft for the page. Feel free to add to it Genabab (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

But these sources are just a fraction of the reliable sources. The overwhelming majority don’t use this term. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley What is this a reply to? Wiki formatting makes it very difficult to tell. At elast for me ;_; Genabab (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I know what you mean. It was a reply to the five sources you gave for "massacre": managed to find a few sources that use the term massacre in the title. My contention is that this is not the common name, although some RSs use it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Well, if it has "human rights" in the name, surely that means it is a reliable source, am I right? Besides, the Araby article that you cited here says the "Assadists" killed 211 civilians without specifying their religion, so they could very well be Sunnis, which is beyond the scope of this article as it stands.

Which brings me to my question: Are you the kind of person who would add the Armenian fedayi to the infobox on Armenian genocide just because they killed "civilians" during the genocide, or who would rename that article to Genocide in eastern Anatolia to blur the line between oppressor and oppressed whenever it is convenient for you? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

It’s ironic to use Grayzone (a deprecated source here) to evidence SNHR being unreliable! All Syria analysts say that SNHR is the best (imperfect) source on this sort of thing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

"All analysts" who ? Their work has been criticise heavily in recent months. 81.139.230.168 (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Have posted several examples in section on SOHR below. If we want a discussion on SOHR and SNHR, probably best to create a new section for that, but if you have examples of criticism of SNHR that aren't from Grayzone you could post them there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

https://sdf-press.com/en/?p=18476

The sdf called them out for lying about three deaths that SNHR falsely attributed to their forces. They also said they are getting information directly from Turkey. 81.139.230.168 (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

SDF allegations are not more reliable than SNHR allegations. They're obviously a highly biased source, and of course they'll deny allegations made by human rights groups when they commit war crimes. Meanwhile, the SDF claim that SNHR doesn't record Turkish and SNA war crimes is demonstrably false, as can be shown by a momentary glance at the SNHR website. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I never said they're more or less reliable but it's very obvious they were lying about this. SDF has been by far the least violent party in the civil war whereas the SNA has a history littered with war crimes in Afrin and elsewhere. SNHR has deliberately downplayed SNA and opposition war crimes. 81.139.230.168 (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

SDF is "by far" the least violent party? that's only your biased perspective, a YPG spokesperson admitted to targeting settlers in Afrin to "stop demographics change", as he put it. SNHR no doubt has a bias towards the oppositions, but you need reassess your assumptions. FleetingClarity (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

And did you read how the demographics change happened? Theofunny (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Is your implication is that it justifies murdering settlers - who are refugees btw - or what? FleetingClarity (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Sunni Islamist fighters who displaced native Kurds are not "refugees" though murder is not justified, nor did I imply that. Theofunny (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

The majority of settlers are regular refugees who aren't linked to any fighters, your use of such dehumanizing language to cover for the murder of refugees is concerning. FleetingClarity (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

That's an unfair comparison, a million and a half Armenians were killed during the Armenian genocide. I don't know how many civilians were killed by Armenian fedayi during that period, but its clearly a much smaller percentage. However, here more than 1/3rd of all civilians killed were killed by pro-Assadist insurgents based on the SNHR estimate. So not including them is not an option. Ecrusized (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

It is very much an option, since there is nothing to suggest any Alawites were killed by Ba'athists. Again, @Ecrusized I have to ask what evidence do you have that they targeted Alawites? Genabab (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that they didn't target Alawites? Ecrusized (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

If a source is saying something as uncorroborated as what SNHR is saying here, then it's safe to assume what we have is not authentic reporting but an exercise in propaganda. Those who doubt this claim don't need to prove a negative. Fakeloser (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I concur with @Fakeloser. The onus isn't on those who doubt a claim to prove a negative. This article is explicitly about the killings of Alawites and so should only mention dead Alawites. Sisuvia (talk) 07:57, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

"If a source is saying something as uncorroborated as what SNHR is saying here, then it's safe to assume what we have is not authentic reporting but an exercise in propaganda." If this is right, it would be no less true if you replaced SNHR with SOHR yet SOHR is being inserted into every section and table of this article, in most cases with no corroboration.

We need to attribute all claims to these groups and seek to triangulate with other sources to avoid becoming a propaganda vehicle. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ecrusized The fact that no source says they did? Genabab (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

The SNHR is a pro-Turkish and pro-Qatari propaganda outlet that supports Jolani’s regime and should only be cited with a disclaimer, it does not fall under the category of neutral sources at all. 98.152.126.154 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

SOHR nor SNHR. Theofunny (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Why? You think Assadists care about anyone but themselves? They've always not cared about alawites and killed them. In this case it's in order to sow division and create chaos 2A02:908:1C50:8AC0:49E1:B074:8EA8:D1C0 (talk) 13:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

It has been a day since any further edit was made here, while not that long, discussion has devolved from if Ba'athist insurgents should be included to if SNHR is reliable. As a result, it has been 4 days since the last serious argument was made in favour of keeping the Ba'athists around. As this discussion has lost its scope, with no arguments being made for inclusion, I think it's time to say that a de facto consensus has been reached and they should be removed. Genabab (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Other RS are also stating that Assad loyalists are involved in civilian massacres and cite SNHR.

'Are you Alawite?': Killings in Syrian village of Arza raise fears of endless sectarian violence | The National

‘They killed him in cold blood’: the cycle of revenge in north-west Syria | Syria | The Guardian

‘The streets are empty, no one dares go outside’: Syria’s Alawites terrorised by revenge killings | Syria | The Guardian Theofunny (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The National wrote "A preliminary report by the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) says that 961 people were killed between March 6 and March 13, mainly Alawites, in the coastal area and Hama province.

The war monitor reported that Assad loyalists killed at least 207 government security forces and at least 225 civilians during the insurgency, while groups aligned with the new government killed at least 529 civilians – including children, women and medical personnel – and disarmed fighters."

The Guardian wrote "According to the Syrian Network for Human Rights, 529 civilians and prisoners were killed by armed individuals and Syrian government forces. Two Turkish-backed factions, the Hamzat division and Abu Amsha’s Sultan Suleiman Shah division, which are officially a part of the new Syrian army but not yet under its full command, were responsible for the majority of civilians killed by Syrian government forces, according to SNHR. In addition, Assad loyalists killed 225 civilians and 207 members of Syrian government forces, the war monitor added."

and "In total, the four days of fighting left more than 1,000 people dead, including 745 civilians, many of whom were killed in revenge attacks targeting the sect. In addition, Assad loyalists killed 211 members of the Syrian security forces and 228 civilians." in the second article. Theofunny (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Theofunny Do any of these sources say that Assadist insurgents killed Alawites? After all the title of the page is "massacres of Syrian Alawites" Genabab (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Which other group of civilians would be killed in the Alawite heartland? Theofunny (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

@Theofunny Sunnis and government forces? Do you think everyone in Tartus and Latakia province is an Alawite? Genabab (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

That argument equally leads to changing the title as it does to changing the infobox BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. This is nonsense and falls in line with Turkish and HTS terrorist propaganda. If we have only the SNHR and Jolani himself claiming Ba’athist insurgents committed massacres, that’s an immediate red flag. 98.152.126.154 (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Personal attacks on editors

This person seems like he's deliberately trying to violate the neutrality of the article. Clearly the reference to insurgents should be removed from the perpetrators box until a reliable source has come forward to corroborate what SNHR is saying. Fakeloser (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC) Please assume good faith, refrain from making personal accusations against other editors, and focus on the content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC) He's taking as fact extremely suspicious numbers from a disreputable source. I would argue that is not discussion in good faith but concealing the nature of what amounts to an ethnic cleansing. 81.139.230.168 (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC) Repeat: 81.139.230.168 please refrain from personal allegations against other editors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:19, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

The much more important question here is why are we accepting the SNHR figures here ? SNHR has very recently been the topic of extremely dubious information. They claimed in their December report, that the SDF killed 108 civilians in recent clashes with the rebels whilst only saying SNA and Turkey caused 8 and 9 civilian deaths respectively. They also wrongly attributed extrajudicial executions to the SDF that were actually done by rebels near Manbij.

In even more recent damage to their reputation also have rather sickeningly tried to excuse the recent massacres Turkey has done on Tishreen Dam against protesters. Baselessly accusing the SDF of coercing the protesters.

All these instances should give editors here more than enough reason to not include SNHR as even a reliable source on this matter. Especially as more reliable sources like SOHR or local sources haven't even mentioned the killings supposedly carried out by insurgents. Fakeloser (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Fakeloser at the start of the violence there was a facebook post by an assadist page in which they threatened alawites who do not cooperate with them with death (at the assadists' hand explicitly), I think it's relevant to cite a link to it or a source that mentions it here 156.210.180.24 (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware Wikipedia doesn't allow linking sources which directly come from social media. This kind of thing proves nothing in relation to the Pro-Assad insurgents actually carrying out killing on the Alawite community anyways, all the available evidence we have is of the Syrian state perpetrating these massacres.

Thats why the inclusion of the insurgents borders on denial. 81.139.230.168 (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. SNHR have, more than once, exaggerated figures of death based on which group/actor is committing the killings. This is fundamentally unreliable. SOHR is a more reliable source that is seen as the primary and original UN watchdog report during the Assad regime. It is more factual and it isn't funded by misinformation or a one-sided group. I agree to refrain from citing SNHR and instead use more reliable sources such as the SOHR. DX2004 (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Assadist insurgents have been perpetrating mass-murder of civilians and terrorist attacks targeting hospitals. They are one of the major perpetrators of the massacres in Western Syria. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

These aren't credible organisations when discussing this matter "In the 2019 RfC, editors generally agreed that Anadolu Agency is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics"

The New Arab is also just regurgitating unfounded SNHR allegations. This is only a see through attempt at attempting both sides what is very clearly an ethnic cleansing campaign.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_281#RfC:_Anadolu_Agency 81.139.230.168 (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree Anadolu Agency is a source we shouldn't use. New Arab is reliable, although this is an opinion piece, but it's by the author of one of the most highly regarded books on the Syrian civil war, so I think it's strong. SNHR is also a far better source than some that have been cited so far in the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

SNHR is a terrible source because they have board members who are part of the regime and have a history of deliberately underplaying or not reporting on opposition/Pro-Jolani war crimes.

They are heavily biased and should just be taken out of the article.

If they have to be included to not give the article undue weight to SOHR there should be a separate section for the SNHR allegations at the bottom.

There is no logical reason their claims should be given equal footing over more neutral or first hand sources however. 81.139.230.168 (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

A separate section for a source is not something our manual of style would allow for.

Which Board members are "part of the regime"? Please provide evidence for your assertions, bearing in mind talk pages are covered by BLP policies. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Some people do stupid things, and the Assadists only support the Alawites because the Alawites support Assad (a quid pro quo deal that isn't based on actual care for each other). Besides, your only claim as to why the source is unreliable is that it's from Qatar, but that doesn't mean that it's connected to the Qatari government and it's views or operations. LordOfWalruses (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

@EcrusizedEcrusized

I agree with scrutinizing SNHR more. They are definitely biased. Look at their board members (Turkish backed SNC members). They aren't impartial as bad as the SOHR is. That source is never scrutinized enough. If you go on their website you barely find reports on war crimes perpetrated by the armed opposition / Nusra. They also claimed that HTS (and previously Nusra), had only committed a couple hundred civilian deaths throughout the Syrian War, which is highly dubious. 20marcor (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

They also claimed that HTS (and previously Nusra), had only committed a couple hundred civilian deaths throughout the Syrian War, which is highly dubious.

That is corroborated by SOHR. Assad regime and Russia committed 90% of civilian deaths during the Syrian civil war. Casualties of the Syrian civil war#Civilian deaths Ecrusized (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

This is not corroborated by the SOHR. The Wikipedia's numbers of SOHR needs to be updated, firstly. And the figure it gives of 165,000 civilians are ones they have documented by name. We have numerous videos and footage that have come out of massacres and many have been verified by the formerly pro-opposition Verify-Syr, yet no footage has come out (nor names of victims in their villages as a result of regime remnants). That's how people corroborate their validity. Besides, little to no scrutiny by journalists have been placed on the SNHR, despite the fact that is has rarely done reports on documented atrocities that the armed opposition/Nusra has committed during the Syrian War. SOHR, to their credit, at least tries to do that (They covered Hatla massacre, The Zara'a massacre, the Maan massacre, the massacre of Christians in Sadad and many more). The SNHR virtually only documents deaths caused by the regime and claims (without evidence) that the SDF has tortured more people to death than the Turkish-backed SNA factions. The fact that the only media outlets that cite the org are Al-Araby TV, Al-Jazeera, and Syria TV (All outlets with indirect/direct ties to Qatari or Turkish funding) is also notable.

The fact that their board members are Turkish-backed SNC means that they have a conflict of interest and they also don't disclose their funding. If we are going to scrutinize the SOHR for its bias, we should mention that the SNHR is an NGO aligned with the Turkish backed opposition in exile, because their board members are well known members. 20marcor (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, @Ecrusized and @Bobfrombrockley

Here is the Syrian Network for Human Rights' organizational structure. I just found it. Apparently they deleted it from their website (I guess to avoid scrutiny??). But here is the link on Wayback machine.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200712221428/http://sn4hr.org/public_html/wp-content/pdf/english/Organizational_Structure_en.pdf

The members of the organization are clearly pro opposition. It also says that it gets funding from "individuals, entities, and states". Again, it does not disclose what "individuals" or "states" they are. 20marcor (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

specifically the Turkish backed government in exile (SNC) 20marcor (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

That document is from 2017. Maybe it is no longer on their website as the governance structure or Board members changed since then? One of the listed members left his role in the SNC after a very short period, long before 2017. In fact, by 2017 SNC had totally ceased to function. Looking for more recent references to him, he does not appear to have any affiliation with the new government, and has been critical of all factions of the former opposition. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I see what you are saying but it still indicates a conflict of interest. The UN themselves were also unable to verify the death tolls published by organizations like SNHR which is why they for awhile, stopped counting deaths in early 2014, citing credibility issues.

Also, given the gravity of the situation, I think we should give some sort of caveat that none of these death tolls are actually verifiable. I personally have connections on the ground from the Syrian coasts (not that it matters), and all have said that Al-Araby, Al Jazeera (who cite SNHR)'s do not represent the reality and that the death toll is likely many times higher.

If we want to corroborate this, I believe certain journalists on X (like Jenan Moussa (see here: https://x.com/jenanmoussa/status/1899150043095175282

Lindsey Snell see here: https://x.com/LindseySnell/status/1898421935400235471

and Joshua Landis see here: https://x.com/joshua_landis/status/1899944417563468065

There have also been witness testimonies reported by Lebanon's Al-Jadeed TV, as well as the new media outlets Daraj and Megaphone News. The testimonies are very detailed, but I am not sure if these sources are credible/

some European outlets have also interviewed on the ground witnesses to the massacres. Can we put a section on witness testimonies? 20marcor (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

1) Yes the UN stopped counting in 2014 but not because of any issues to do with the credibility of the SNHR. They said they were unable to verify the reports of any NGOs due to chaos on the ground. Asked specifically about SOHR (the most cited source) they said they couldn't verify their data; they made no explicit comment on SNHR. "Colville said the U.N. could not endorse anyone else’s count, including the widely quoted figures from the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, whose latest tally is more than 130,000 killed in violence in Syria since March 2011."

2) "Also, given the gravity of the situation, I think we should give some sort of caveat that none of these death tolls are actually verifiable." I agree with this 100%.

3) On the journalists you mention, they are certainly no less biased than the ones I cited saying SOHR was exaggerating the numbers, just biased in the opposite direction. Moussa doesn't seem to have gotten published by anyone for a long while and has always been hostile to the former opposition; Snell mainly publishes in fringe publications if at all and understandably has an agenda, as she was kidnapped by HTS's predecessor organisation; Landis, who is married to an Alawi, is widely described as an Assadist. The journalists I mentioned are not bias-free, but these ones are certainly not better.

4) Witness testimonies that have been reported seems like an OK proposal to me, but we'd need to be very careful in attribution and note who has verified them or if they are unverified etc. My instinct would be to include them in the chronology rather than give them a section. A friendly reminder, though, that we are an encyclopedia and not a newspaper so it's sometimes better to let the dust clear and use better sources after enough time for verification and triangulation. This is why we should avoid WP:Breaking news sources. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Well why haven't they updated their website to include list new board members or governance structure ?

They are shady about their funding because they have something to hide, it's there simple. 81.139.230.168 (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with 20marcor. During the Assad regime era, SOHR was one of the primary monitoring organization sources reporting articles to the UN about the civilian death and crimes committed by the previous regime forces. It was primarily viewed as an opposition resource. So, when it starts reporting civilian death cause by the current government, after the overthrow of the previous government, it suddenly became unreliable? There are numerous videos recorded by the militants themselves, affiliated with the current government, who proudly burned coastal and countryside houses and murdered entire families. DX2004 (talk) 21:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Most Syria-watchers, including those supportive of the former opposition, have said SOHR is unreliable for years now, due to sloppy and opaque methodology and hasty publication of unverified rumours. In recent years, it has re-aligned politically, and has been hostile to HTS and SNA for some time, and more closely aligned with SDF, which is not in itself a problem unless it affects the honesty of the reporting, which many analysts have been arguing it has for some years now. (Meanwhile, those who attacked it for years as "pro-opposition", such as Grayzone, cited above, are now using it as a reliable source, showing how people believe the sources which agree with them...) BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Why do you accuse the SOHR of being close to SDF (based off of whom?) but not the SNHR who had board members part of the SNC and is falsifying figures in East Aleppo ? 81.139.230.168 (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

See answers already elsewhere on this page. To clarify: neither SNHR nor SOHR are generally reliable, but most Syria analysts see SNHR as more reliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Then neither one of them should be cited without a disclaimer. 98.152.126.154 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Correct. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

No they really don't. The SOHR is referenced far more in mainstream news and scholarly journals. Fakeloser (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

You can keep on asserting "No they really don't" but I've already provided a long list of ones who do. I can add more:

• Widely cited analyst Aaron Y. Zelin: https://x.com/azelin/status/1899765397861069115
• The founder of Ḥurrīya.net: https://x.com/suhaib_zaino/status/1900302174292500944
• A highly respected journalist and journalism lecturer: https://x.com/abdultahhan/status/1898725849857225042
• Arabic-speaking journalism professor Idrees Ahmed: https://x.com/im_pulse/status/1899926417112261082

Possibly SOHR is referenced more in mainstream news than SNHR, but both frequently are. The Guardian: "The Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR), a human rights monitor considered independent and credible"[8], "the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR), which employs exhaustive documentation standards and is considered independent"[9] BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

This is very Dubious Presumtuous logic, that Assadist forces would not kill Alawites, they were literally threatening Alawites that did not support them and supported the Government or did not want to be involved in their insurgency.

The guy that is the leader of the insurgency, literally put out a video threatening alawites who supported the govt and refused to support his movement.

Here is the video where miqdad fatiha threatens alawites.

https://x.com/amahaf2/status/1898473515105370148 Midgetman433 (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

It's not dubious in the slightest. Insurgents have had their hands full dealing with the Security forces pouring in from all regions.

They would not dare to make their position among their own sect untenable.

A threat means nothing, until we see actual evidence Assad loyalists have perpetuated massacres we cannot include them in the perpetrator box. 81.139.230.168 (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Insurgencies kill people from their own side they think are cooperating with new govt. This is not a new phenomena the Insurgency in Iraq killed Sunnis that cooperated with the Post Saddam govt in Baghdad and the US occupation administration.

This guy is literally on video threatening people and saying he knows where they live and “tomorrow may come sooner than you might expect.”, he released that video a few days before the ambushes took place. Midgetman433 (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

So what ? I don't see the relevance of including a random insurgent making threats to collaborators. We've seen multiple videos of Islamists fighters gloating over dead Alawis, gunning them down in the street etc. The most you can provide as far as evidence goes is barely of even a circumstantial character. If there had been mass killing of 'Collaborators' ( there aren't really many) by the Alawite insurgents we'd have seen them by now on video or some kind of testimonial. The media and regime paid influencers would be flinging it around the internet by now.

Also different situation isn't it ? Alawis are a couple million with a very heavy military presence from the regime in a small area. Iraq is a comparatively big country with a large Sunni population. The Alawite insurgents are currently attempting to evade regime patrols. 81.139.230.168 (talk) 01:05, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Midgetman433 Twitter is not a RS. We can't cite it Genabab (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ecrusized: the tag dubious should be removed because it is an WP:OR. The info is well sourced. Panam2014 (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

References

SOHR is pro-Israeli and has un-reliability and accuracy issues

One thing that is visible about SOHR is that it is biased in favour of pro-Israeli geo-political agendas. Apart from this, SOHR is also widely described as a "one-man operation" and is a controversial war monitor with regards to its factual inaccuracies, erroneous reporting methods, lack of transparency and peddling of unverified reports. Basically, it is like a self-published source which often makes incorrect claims. Giving undue weight to the claims made by SOHR and censorship of reliable war monitors is heavily disruptive. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

References

All of your linked articles are either explicitly pro-jolani regime or Turkish and thus your claims about insurgents attacking hospitals will need corroboration by reliable and independent sources. SOHR is not a "pro-israeli" organisation. If anything it is biased towards the opposition, its members were arrested by the Assad regime because of its reporting on its activities and it is based in the anti-assad United Kingdom and received funding from the government. 81.139.230.168 (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I disagree and I believe the template needs to be removed. SOHR is in general reliable and factual, it is quoted by all major international news outlets and human rights organizations that we consider reliable.[10][11] It cannot be considered self-published, especially when it is quoted by reliable sources. The SNHR also quotes a high number of civilian deaths. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Please see a decent discussion on the Reliable Source Noticeboard on this source where there was a strong consensus that SOHR is NOT generally reliable, that it should always be attributed, that we should always seek to triangulate with alternative sources, and that it if it the only source its claims may not be due. In my view, the sensational, inaccurate and unverifiable claims they have made about this sectarian violence has further discredited them. I don’t know what the political agenda is (anti-Turkey?, anti-HTS?, pandering to western sensationalism?) but we need to really downgrade their use.

• Heres’s Neil Hauer, a respected journalist: https://x.com/neilphauer/status/1899411067899408509?s=46&t=flYmPcFh8Xa_bTj4gqVu9A
• Here’s Rena Netjes, an Arabic-fluent Syria analyst who spends a lot of time there: https://x.com/renanetjes/status/1899399751558201483?s=46&t=flYmPcFh8Xa_bTj4gqVu9A
• Here’s Nathan Ruser, a very respected OSINT analyst: https://x.com/nrg8000/status/1899656866617315680?s=46&t=flYmPcFh8Xa_bTj4gqVu9A
• Here’s Sarab Iany, founder of the Syrian Memories archive: https://x.com/sarabiany/status/1898565801730265519?s=46&t=flYmPcFh8Xa_bTj4gqVu9A
• Thomas van Linge, reporter: https://x.com/thomasvlinge/status/1899413042753946029?s=46&t=flYmPcFh8Xa_bTj4gqVu9A
• syria researcher silvia Carenzi https://x.com/silviacarenzi/status/1898799954170102191?s=46&t=flYmPcFh8Xa_bTj4gqVu9A
• syria author Saana-Maria Jokinen: https://x.com/um_samira/status/1898331513348862215?s=46&t=flYmPcFh8Xa_bTj4gqVu9A

etc BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

No, put simply we do not.

SOHR is far more reliable than SNHR which is an out and out pro-Jolani regime propaganda source.

It's funny how the supposed analysts include Van Linge who since the start of the war has just existed to launder Al Qaeda's reputation. 81.139.230.168 (talk) 10:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

"No, put simply we do not" what? Do not follow the reliable sourcing consensus established on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard? If you have evidence that SNHR is less reliable than SOHR then post it. What you say about van Linge is probably libellous too, so please be aware of our BLP policy and consider striking it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The evidence that SNHR is unreliable is the fact that it does not disclose any of its funding despite admitting that they get funding from "states" (which states? Qatar?). Their board members are also members of the Turkish/Qatari-backed SNC (Syrian opposition exile, widely hated by even much of the rest of the former opposition). Given that Al-Araby TV, Al Jazeera, and Syria TV (all Qatari funded tv outlets) cite them more often clearly indicates that SNHR has a pro Turkey bias. We should mention this in the article. 20marcor (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Is SOHR transparent about its funding, its board, its staff? Does it ever name its sources? If these things make SNHR unreliable, they make SOHR unreliable too. We should refrain from using either source without careful attribution and triangulation. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:48, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Actually yes, SOHR is pretty open about receiving funding from the UK governmen. 81.139.230.168 (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Is it? Can you link to an example? (If it ever once was funded by the UK government, I don't think it has been for a very long time.) BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Whilst the director doesn't explicitly mention it was the UK government, he says a European country gave a small donation.

SNHR on the other hand won't disclose where the countries who fund them are even located regionally.

[12]https://www.medialens.org/2018/the-syrian-observatory-funded-by-the-foreign-office/ 81.139.230.168 (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

So in 2012, according to

that unreliable source, which also claims that the director kept it quiet. If you have a link to the director talking transparently about funding sources more recently than that I’d be interested to read it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

It's only unreliable because you need it to be after I disproved your earlier point. Please stop assuming bad faith and shifting the goalposts or recuse yourself from the conversation.

SNHR has never bothered to disclose its financial backers for obvious reasons which would shed light on its lack of impartiality. Fakeloser (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the points. SOHR is a much more reliable source. It is a primarily opposition source that documented numerous crimes committed by the Assad regime. However, during the current regime, it isn't viewed as reliable anymore? That isn't logical and it should be emphasized more. SNHR has a history of false misinterpretation of civilian deaths as it is funded by one-sided actor and hence shouldn't be viewed as reliable per se. DX2004 (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

• Funny how SOHR was considered reliable before when it fit a certain narrative, but not now? But yes, like back then, most reliable sources report SOHR's numbers, so we should too. FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Moral support is not being involved in the conflict

@David O. Johnson: The current wording implies there is military cooperation, or military involvement, all the SDF did was opposition to the Ba'athist insurgency, but the current wording makes it seem as though there is some material military support, which there isn't. Des Vallee (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

The way I'm reading it, the SDF will support it in the future. I found another source that mentions "Joint efforts to counter external threats, including armed groups and foreign interventions that destabilize Syria." [13]. I do understand your point. I'll go ahead and revert. The current wording could use some adjustment, but things will be clearer in time. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Genocide allegation in lead

In the lead, we report a few groups, alleging, genocide. I added links to 2 of them and they turn out not to be notable enough to have their own articles; I have no idea what they are, but I presume that, along with one of the other groups listed, they are PKK fronts. Another is a Christian pro-Assad group basing their claim on false information. Are these fringe claims due in the lead? We should wait and see if Eg HRW, AI, the EU or legal scholars make this claim before putting it in the lead. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Before you do that, first take out the insurgents in the perpetrator box. 81.139.230.168 (talk) 10:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

How are those two things directly related? BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

SOHR is basically one person in London gathering information from Syria; Lemkin Institute is extremely biased; I've never heard about the rest; to sum up, I agree with Bobfrombrockley, and I deleted it as WP:FRINGE. Wikisaurus (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

There is no evidence that pro-Assad elements massacred civilians, and the "Newarab" article is clearly not neutral and attempts to exonerate those responsible.

Christians in infobox

1. Including Christians in the infobox only makes sense if we change the name of the article, which we should, to something like Sectarian violence in western Syria in March 2025, because obviously Christians aren't Alawites.
2. Per WP:NEWSWEEK, Newsweek is not a good source.
3. I am not sure that Christian Broadcasting Network is reliable - I have posted a question on WP:RSN to ask.
4. The third source now cited, which is a good one, does not say Christians have been killed; in fact it says they haven't but have been caught up in the violence and are therefore fearful. Thus it only makes sense in the infobox if the article changes its name away from "massacres" or "mass killings" to "violence" or "sectarian violence".

BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Makes no sense to include Christians as victims in this article. Sisuvia (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree as well. Between 4 and 6 were killed in the clashes iirc but Christians were never part/targets of the attacks. Personally I think this article should be cut down and merged with March 2025 Western Syria clashes since the article now mainly focuses on those 4 days anyways TedKekmeister (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Nonsense. I think the title should just be renamed to “2025 Western Syria massacres” as numerous RS including France24 and Reuters confirm that Christians are being targeted and are fleeing their homes alongside Alawites 98.152.126.154 (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Again, it is hard to view you as neutral to this subject when you literally have the flag of the al-Nusra al Qaeda linked terrorist group that is currently ruling Syria. A brief visit to the HTS page here will quickly tell you they are quite literally a designated terrorist group 98.152.126.154 (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Six residents of the coastal region said thousands of Alawites and Christians had fled their homes since Thursday, fearing for their lives.

1101 (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I believe it should stay in the infobox, with a "disputed" or similar note, as it is now. The reliable reports of Christian deaths are sufficient to include them in the infobox. Even if those are smaller in number, those were not accidental deaths but targeted killings. The primary target were the Alawites so no need for a title change. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

SOHR is biased, but so is the SNHR (pro Qatar/pro Turkey who back Sharaa's government)

I understand that it is imperative for us to use trustworthy sources. Unfortunately it is widely recognized that when it comes to Syria sources from many organizations tend to be unreliable (minimal presence on the ground, funding sources etc). I understand why people find Rami Abdul Rahman's SOHR problematic (it used to be criticized as having anti-Assad bias, later years it was criticized as biased towards the Kurdish SDF). Regardless, it is a widely cited platform and they are documenting the massacres happening in various parts of the coast (From videos alone). Given that fighters have been asked to not film, we can assume that the death toll really is much higher. Plus, in times like this where we could be witnessing a genocide, it is imperative that we get down to the truth. The problem with the Syrian network for human rights is that it also has a conflict of interest. It's board members include people like Burhan Galioun and other members of the Istanbul based SNC (Turkish/Qatari-backed opposition in exile, Muslim Brotherhood-linked). That makes them untrustworthy. If you go on there website, they also explicitly state in their methodology that they avoided document civilian "regime" deaths, highlighting their bias. The fact that they also say that they are funded by "states" but don't disclose what states fund them, is also a red flag. They are frequently cited by pro-Qatar media like Al-Araby TV and Al Jazeera and Syria TV, which in my opinion are all biased towards the pro HTS/pro Sharaa government position and thus are not reliable. 20marcor (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

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. 20marcor (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

It's unfair to say SNHR didn't cover JfS violations.

Some examples:

• "The Most Notable Hay'at Tahrir al Sham Violations Since the Establishment of Jabhat al Nusra to Date". Syrian Network for Human Rights. 31 January 2022. Retrieved 13 March 2025.
• "Risks in the Expansion by HTS, Classified as a Terrorist Entity by UNSC Resolutions, Over About 560 Square Kilometers in the Past Few Days". Syrian Network for Human Rights. 18 October 2022. Retrieved 13 March 2025.
• "Jund Al Aqsa affiliated to Al Nusra Front is Responsible for Burning the Buses in Idlib". Syrian Network for Human Rights. 22 December 2016. Retrieved 13 March 2025.
• "Jabhat Al-Nusra is the responsible of cutting off the water supplies to Aleppo". Syrian Network for Human Rights. 14 May 2014. Retrieved 13 March 2025.

SNHR describes Hatla in its 2015 report on sectarian killings, giving a lower number (14) for civilian deaths than most other sources (30). It describes the 2013 Latakia violence too giving a figure of 132 (compared to HRW 160). BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley I think the problem here is that this doesn't show that they didn't cover JFS violations. Since none of these sources ever mention massacres like the Hatla Massacre, Latakia Countrusde massacres, Maan, etc as @20marcor pointed out. Subsequently, I think it makes sense to say there is an issue here with SNHR as their reporting looks very selective Genabab (talk) 11:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I’m struggling with double negatives, but I’ve posted links to SNHR covering JFS violations and the Hatla Massacre and Latakia Countryside massacres, so I think that’s pretty conclusive. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley WHere? None of these sources mention the Hatla Massacre for instance. Genabab (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Did you click on the link where I said “SNHR describes Hatla in its 2015 report on sectarian killings”? https://snhr.org/blog/2015/06/16/8049/ (full pdf download here: https://snhr.org/wp-content/pdf/english/The_Societys_Holocaust.pdf ) BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I stand corrected. They do seem to document these killings. But it doesn't address the main issue with their methodology. On their website, they publicly admit in their methodology that they are generally unable to document victims deaths in areas held by the Assad government / SDF-held territories / HTS, and are only able to confidently do so in areas held by the SNA ("liberated" using the terminology of the mainstream Turkish backed Syrian opposition in exile).

https://snhr.org/public_html/wp-content/pdf/english/SNHR_Methodology_en.pdf (See page 13 and 14). The way you submit a violation is through a special form on their website and wait for them to approve it. How they approve the validity of a victim is kept extremely ambiguous.

They also don't say which territories the people they have on the ground work out of. Given that they are unable to "be in contact" with the people in the said territories, we can only assume that they operated out of SNA / "liberated" aka Turkish-occupied territories.

It's unfortunate that the methodology of this clearly very well-financed NGO organization is not questioned enough. Fadel Ghany, the CEO of SNHR has recently admitted on X.com that he has been attacked by many "pro-revolution" activists for even daring to cover some of the massacres in West Syria against Alawites in the first place, thus quietly admitting to his bias.

https://x.com/FADELABDULGHANY/status/1900100508863389924 20marcor (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Clearly their methodology is imperfect, but at least they describe it. That's an old description which explains the undercount of the dead in massacres during the civil war, which is not wholly relevant now as all the territory where the massacres are happening are "liberated" in the sense SNHR might have used it back then. SNHR, like SOHR, has extensive contacts in all regions, not just in what you call "Turkish-occupied" areas. More relevant for this article would be their 11 March report on these particular massacres, which includes two pages of methodology, including a far from ambiguous description of the high bar they set for confirming deaths:

• Direct interviews with eyewitnesses and survivors. • Technical analysis and thorough verification of visual materials, including videos and images. • Cross-referencing information from multiple independent sources to ensure the highest level of accuracy and reliability

In contrast, SOHR are pumping out figures within hours of the alleged deaths occurring in news articles with no description of methodology; it seems impossible they have verified these, and we should treat them as reported by their contacts with who knows what quality control.

Finally, I think that Fadel Abdulghany's does not say what you infer. Far from quietly "admitting to his bias", he is criticising those who try to erase deaths at the hands of the new government; speaking out is a good indicator of his independence from the government. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

To add to this @BobFromBrockley This isn't the first time this has happened. I remember following the Second Nagorno-Karabakh war between Azerbaijan and Armenia and I remember distinctly that there were hundreds of videos that came out of the Azerbaijani side showing soldiers engaging in war crimes, whereas the Armenian side had 20ish videos circulating of Armenian soldiers engaging in atrocities.

HRW ended up "verifying" an equal amount of videos from the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides to portray the two sides as equally guilty of war crimes. These NGOs should not be treated as the objective truth when their partnerships and financing is kept very dubious. And in the case of SNHR even their methodology is.

SNHR is like a steroid version of the VDC (linked to the Syrian LCC, which is part of the opposition), but unlike SNHR, VDC at least admits point blank that it mainly focuses on documenting war crimes committed in regions held by the opposition. 20marcor (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

It is hard to view you as impartial / neutral to the subject when your page has the flag of the literal designated terrorist group that is currently ruling Syria. The SNHR is a Turkish-Qatari propaganda network that supports the HTS-al Nusra terrorist Jolani 98.152.126.154 (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

HTS's flag is a green and white shahada flag. Ironically, calling the flag of the Syrian revolution - which was also the flag of the first and second Syrian pre-Ba'athist republics - a "terrorist flag" only shows your bias. FleetingClarity (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed completely. The SNHR is effectively a Turkish-Qatari propaganda outlet that backs the HTS regime and reports vastly lower casualties and atrocities inflicted by the Turkish-backed opposition. Them reporting a tiny number of civilian casualties inflicted by pro-Turkish terrorists is not proof of them being neutral let alone reliable. They should only be cited with a disclaimer in my opinion, as even one user who is sympathetic towards them admitted they are “generally not reliable” (alongside the SOHR) 98.152.126.154 (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Snhr actually discusses their methodology unlike sohr.By nature , this death count takes longer to update as they verify informatio

Sohr in contrast , routinely inflates death counts without providing documentation. For example , for an USA air strike on Albu Kamal, sohr reported 22 dead in a massacre right away when only the singular target died

https://x.com/Elizrael/status/1366102139639107586

Here's another example where SOHR claimed that there were airstrikes against Iranian militias and provided death counts , only for those strikes to not exist .

https://x.com/QalaatAlMudiq/status/1271739601309388803

Claimed the international coalition was going to set up a court in Hasakah , when no such thing was even being discussed .

https://x.com/RojavaNetwork/status/1278743965634899968

In general, just a lot of evidence that sohr information is based on social media with no real verification. That allows sohr to give death counts quickly while snhr is much slower . 2600:1700:42FB:A010:BA13:BAC0:F2C3:6F80 (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

we will should reduce how often sohr is cited. when sohr is the only source in syria where journalists are operating freely, it's likely that false information is being spread. 2600:1700:42FB:A010:55E9:FF2E:965E:4EC6 (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, SOHR often inflates the numbers however there are multiple sources on the ground on the coast now who are reporting more deaths not fewer in relation to SOHR. In this instance it seems SOHR might be reliable.

Either way it's obviously more impartial than the pro-regime SNHR Fakeloser (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Which "multiple sources on the ground"? Are these sectarian advocacy groups inflating the numbers? All we have in the article is "Muhammad Nasser, an advisor to the former president of the Alawite Council" (who is he? What is the Alawite Council?) being quoted by an Iraqi Shia website, and a Kurdish website attributing the same claim to unnamed "local sources". BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

the SNHR Is a sectarian, sunni-run organisation that masquerades as an independent ngo who refuses to name its sponsors.

So if we can include them we can include a former advisor to the Alawite council. And yeah I don't know who they are but presumably some kind of reputable local religious leaders. 81.139.231.7 (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

“Sunni-run” is not an indicator of unreliability (and indeed many people would say it’s sectarian to even say it is). I also don’t think “presumably” is the threshold we use for verifiability here . BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

There's no evidence of SNHR discussing their methodology. As I've mentioned elsewhere, they lied recently about the SNA committing war crimes in Manbij/Tishreen dam. Baselessly accusing the SDF of coercing protesters and stationing militia nearby whilst 17 people were killed in airstrikes by Turkey.

https://snhr.org/blog/2025/02/01/236-civilian-deaths-including-32-children-and-18-women-as-well-as-one-womans-death-due-to-torture-documented-in-syria-in-january-2025-21-civilians-were-killed-by-sdf/

In their December report they said they accused the SDF of killing 108 civilians in the month of December while only attributed 8 civilian deaths to all Syrian opposition forces including the SNA, and 9 civilian deaths to Turkey. Essentially these numbers are fabricated given we've seen multiple videos of war crimes committed by the SNA which add up to more than that. https://snhr.org/blog/2025/01/02/1264-civilian-deaths-including-242-children-and-118-women-as-well-as-86-deaths-due-to-torture-documented-in-syria-in-2024/ Fakeloser (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

The SNHR report on the massacres has a three page methodology section.

I agree the December report looks like an undercount, although SNHR totals for the year closely resemble SHRC's.

I think the issue is SNHR only count verified deaths, whereas SOHR reports all deaths they've been told about, with no attempt to verify. Thus the SNHR civilian total for 2024 was 1,264 while the SOHR total was 18,223. SNHR documented just 29 killed by Russia compared to SOHR's 88 - does that mean SNHR is more pro-Russian than SOHR, or just more cautious in its methodology? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

If it's just about SOHR being less cautious, or they would've reported massacres committed by the remnants. There has been a massacre in a Jableh mosque by the remnants and it's beyond suspicious that they have made zero mention of it. Soon, reliable human rights organizations or media are going to report these massacres and the bias should become clear. FleetingClarity (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Just noting the director of SNHR quoted in CNN after giving their death toll: “We expect the death toll to be much higher,” Ghani added. I think it's clear SNHR only give the number of deaths they can confirm, so their figures are certainly an undercount, as he acknowledges there. SOHR in contrast add up all the deaths reported to them, which might well be an overcount as some might be false and others duplicated. Would be good if reliable sources actually spelled this out so we could clarify in article! BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Lock article

jaymartin8080 recently vandalised this article to include quite clearly biased and seemingly sectarian-motivated material. As of now that edit has been reverted, but I suggest this article be locked down to only allow qualified editors to prevent this from happening again. Entity563 (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, agreed, I requested it. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:37, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Can anyone help identify the SNHR report cited by The Guardian?

"The vast majority of unlawful killings of civilians and prisoners by Syrian security forces were committed by two specific factions, as well as individuals who joined military convoys, according to the SNHR.

Specifically, the two factions responsible for the majority of the killings of civilians were the Abu Amsha and Hamzat divisions. Both are rebel groups previously affiliated with the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army. Both factions and their leaders are under US sanctions for alleged serious human rights abuses including rape and torture."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/10/deadly-clashes-between-syrian-security-and-assad-loyalists-what-we-know-so-far

Can't seem to find it on the SNHR website. Sisuvia (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

I can’t either. It’s very possible that the Guardian interviewed SNHR BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Remove “Undue weight” tag?

The tag seems unnecessary since more than 1/2 of the references in the section are from sources other than the SOHR. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Support: Agree with the rationale, there is no undue weight problem right now about SOHR. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The truth of the 2025 events of the coast of syria

Guys i live in jableh and im not Syrian, some of the alwaites supported the remnants of assad regime and tried to control the coast of syria , miqdad fathiya is behind the terrioset attack and most of the alwaites were in the assad regime army. Pe gravisn3 (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Gayth dala former assad regime genral who worked with bashar al assad brother, maher al assad and miqdad fathiya , recurtied some of the alwaites and tried to topple the new goverment in syria and attacked the police and armed syrian forces the battle between the two went on for 2 days, finally most of the remnants of the former assad regime fled, the alwaites support ahmad al shraa but some of them had links to the former assad regime so they fought the government anyway to escape justice and when they failed they tried to kill civilians in hope of international intervention and forcing the government out of the coast. Pe gravisn3 (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Your article is completely uunfair and biased, you failed to mention that Most of the remnants of the assad regime are Alawites and you didn't mention what actually happened and what caused the Syrian government to send troops to the coast, the remnants almost controlled ladiqyah , jableh and tartous for 10 hours. Pe gravisn3 (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

The remnants of the assad regime Attacked and controlled most of the coast for the 10 hours and caused 1000 deathes among the new goverment police and Attacked hospitals, they Attacked the noor hospital in Jableh and Al Watni Hospital. Pe gravisn3 (talk) 03:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Most of the remnants of assad regime are Alwaites Pe gravisn3 (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Your topic also failed to mention that sunni innocent civilians died and were attacked and it's completely biased against the new Syrian government. Pe gravisn3 (talk) 03:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Pe gravisn3 This article isn't protected, which means you can fix those issues on your own as long as you use reliable sources. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

• This is WP:not a forum for discussing your personal opinions and praise of the new de factor dictatorship. The new regime is currently attacking Druze simply for sectarian reasons, are they also "Assadists"? And were the thousands of Yazidis they killed in Iraq also "Assadists"? FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Listing massacres?

Should we start a list on the different massacres that were committed? David O. Johnson (talk) 13:48, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

What about doing what has started being done with 7 March, ie subheadings for the most significant events BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Something like that would work. [14]. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Is the New Arab a reliable source? [relates to disputing claim about Christians as targets]

Currently, in the infobox we have a single source (the New Arab) claiming that Christian leaders in Syria are denying being targeted explicitly. However, this news outlet seems to be a typical pro-Saudi and pro-Qatari network, although I could be wrong I suppose. 98.152.126.154 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

This systematic review published in BioMed Central references The New Arab in relation to Syria. 1101 (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes it’s a reliable source (and pro-Qatar and pro-Saudi are contradictory these days). BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Given its reporting on the recent massacres were just repeating the unfounded claims of the Syrian regime uncritically, I don't see how we can say it's reliable. Pro-Qatari networks aren't when it comes to Syria anyways. Fakeloser (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

We don’t judge sources unreliable because of their country of publication. It’s well respected. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

By whom ? Do you just say things without any bother to substantiate what you're saying ?

That's not even true. Russian and Iranian news and websites on wiki are given unreliable tags given their country of publication. 81.139.231.7 (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

It’s not the country of publication that matters; it’s the degree of government control versus editorial independence. Most obviously, Al-Jazeera has been repeatedly affirmed by the Wikipedia community to be reliable. The New Arab is used heavily as a source, and as far as I can see has never been questioned until now. If you have evidence of unreliability please present it. I’ll raise this at the reliable source noticeboard so that would be the place to do so. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Not recomended for inclusion, the claim is Per see WP:EXTRAORDINARY and only reported by one source, them.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

What do you think is the extraordinary claim exactly? The article actually confirms that some Christians had been killed, but denies that they had been widely targeted, citing Verify-Sy and several Christian organisations. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

“confirms that some Christians had been killed, but denies that they had been widely targeted,” I think that hits the nail on the head.[15][16] It looks like multiple minorities are affected, including Christians, but Alawites are clearly the primary target. 1101 (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Syrian patriarch john yazigi has said that christians have been killed by syrian goverment 176.72.101.123 (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

doesn't change the fact that they aren't the primary target 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:52, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

And that doesn't change the fact that some have been killed. I'm glad we've agreed on the facts, and I feel that the real question is now how to communicate them. We should either list them after Alawites as an undisputed secondary target, or, if their status as a target at all is disputed, which it reasonably may be, maybe we should list them in fatalities to make it clear that other minorities beside Alawites were killed. We could also list a single target, such as religious minorities, and then a specifier, like esp. Alawites. Or should we include them as victims but not targets? I don't think it's disputed that Christians are among the fatalities or victims. See: User:Talib1101/sandbox as my proposal—including Christians as victims of forced displacement but not as targets. That seems consistent with sources to me, and will fix the problem of the current implication that it's disputed whether Christians are victims at all, which I don't think it is. 1101 (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

This might be because I'm awake at 3 am (local time) but I'm having a hard time finding a difference between the current infobox and your proposal 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 23:56, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I just made the change. Feel free to revert it or produce further discussion if you have any ideas for improvement. And maybe consider getting some sleep ;) 1101 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh that's why. Looks good anw. Ill sleep after suhur no worries :) 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 00:00, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Victims/displaced

This is currently in infobox:

• victims = Thousands of displaced Alawites and Christians

References

Would it be better to change the "Victims" to "Displaced" and delete the word displaced from the text, as the "thousands" presumably refers to the displaced not the victims? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I moved the word “displaced” to

the end of the sentence which I think removes the ambiguity BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Pre 23 Feb

Until recently, the infobox had this entry:

• fatalities = Until 23 February:
  154 killed (per SOHR)

This source was from 23 Feb and actually gives a higher total, 305 (in 168 incidents):

“The Syrian Observatory has documented 168 murder crimes and eliminations that come under retaliatory actions in different Syrian provinces since early 2025, which left 305 fatalities, including seven women and a child.”

It breaks it down further, showing that not all of these “retaliatory” actions were “sectarian” killings (the latter presumably of Alawites and perhaps Christians in the coastal regions, perhaps other minorities too?, the former including also Sunni Baathists). In the coastal provinces:

Latakia: 25 fatalities, including one woman, among them were 16 people whose death was based on sectarian affiliation.

Tartus: 17 fatalities, including a woman, among them were 11 people whose death was based on sectarian affiliation.

Far more were killed in Homs and Hama:

Homs: 119 fatalities, including two women, among them were 78 people whose death was based on sectarian affiliation.

Hama: 73 fatalities, including one woman and one child, among them were 42 people whose death was based on sectarian affiliation.

Adding up the total “sectarian deaths” we get 151. Summary: 305 deaths in 154 incidents - 151 in sectarian killings and 154 in other retaliatory attacks - 1 Jan to 23 Feb, and not 154 killed as in that version of our article

More recently an edit by Genabab, no edit summary, replaced this with a higher figure from an earlier article in Arabic without changing the date:

• fatalities = Until 23 February:
  204+ killed (per SOHR)

I’m not sure what the + refers to but the article says:

”Since the beginning of January 2025, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has documented 99 murders, field executions and retaliatory behavior in sporadic Syrian governorates. 204 people: 198 men, 5 women, and one child, were killed.

So this is 99 incidents, 204 deaths, and dated 28 January.

Proposal: I’m going to restore the earlier citation with the later source that matches the date but clarify the figure, like this:

• fatalities = Until 23 February:
  151 in sectarian killings, 154 in other retaliatory killings (per SOHR)

References

Please correct me if I’ve got this wrong! BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

"Assadist" is not used by reliable sources

Terms like "Assadist" are fringe neologisms not used by any objective media, including the sources used in this article, and should not be used by Wikipedia's neutral voice here or in related articles. There are no calls for reinstating Assad, only for protecting civilians of the coast against sectarian killings, which had already been occurring for months leading up to the wider massacres at the hands of the al-Qaeda successor government. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

It is in fact used by RSs:

https://www.criticalthreats.org/analysis/the-west-must-offer-syrias-interim-government-tightly-conditioned-aid-against-an-emerging-assadist-insurgency

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/understanding-syria’s-emerging-insurgency

https://www.newarab.com/opinion/despite-coastal-massacres-there-still-hope-new-syria

https://m.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-835058

https://www.fdd.org/analysis/op_eds/2025/01/29/continued-chaos-in-syria-iraqi-militias-and-an-alawite-insurgency/

https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2025/01/analysis-continued-chaos-in-syria-iraqi-militias-and-an-alawite-insurgency.php

https://www.genocidewatch.com/single-post/syria-genocide-emergency-march-2025

Also commonly used is “Assad loyalist”:

https://amp.dw.com/en/syria-military-ends-operation-against-assad-loyalists/a-71874745

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp-video/mmvo233768517689

https://www.nytimes.com/article/syria-coast-clashes-assad.html

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/International/hundreds-civilians-reported-killed-massacres-violence-syria-spirals/story?id=119579716

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2025/3/10/syria-announces-end-of-military-operation-against-al-assad-loyalists

https://www.ft.com/content/10ded81b-4518-425e-9dbe-709057f64e3e

https://www.newarab.com/news/assad-loyalist-using-lebanon-cross-border-attacks-syria

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/01/10/assad-loyalist-shot-in-head-public-execution-damascus-syria/

https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/mena/2025/01/06/syrias-new-rulers-raise-pressure-on-former-assad-loyalist-areas/

https://english.aawsat.com/arab-world/5096604-syria’s-new-rulers-crack-down-alleged-assad-loyalist-militias

Also pro-Assad militias/fighters/forces:

https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20250306-deadly-clashes-erupt-between-syrian-forces-and-remnants-of-assad-s-militias

https://www.euronews.com/2025/03/08/fighters-loyal-to-syrias-government-kill-dozens-in-reprisal-attacks

https://www.newarab.com/news/why-have-assad-supporters-launched-insurgency-syria

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/syria-nearly-200-killed-in-countrys-worst-violence-since-assad-toppled-13323596

And “loyal to Assad”:

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/czxnwrqey4go.amp

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna196392

https://www.thetimes.com/world/middle-east/article/hundreds-massacred-in-syria-after-crackdown-on-assad-loyalists-232wzm79s

https://www.ft.com/content/e702c71d-a56a-4eda-baad-3800c6ac2a76 BobFromBrockley (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Uh, the bulk of your links don't use the term "Assadist", which is the very point of this section. The first quarter of your links include the least biased ones. We should use the terminology used by most reliable sources as standard, not that used by few biased ones. FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think “Assad loyalist” and “Assadist” are synonymous no? If not, “loyalist” is slightly more common. Here’s some examples:

  “The West Must Offer Syria's Interim Government Tightly Conditioned Aid against an Emerging Assadist Insurgency”[17]

  “broader insurgency across Syria. Assadists are currently the best-organized and most experienced Syrian fighters owing to their combat experience and regime connections throughout the country.”[18] “The showdown between irreconcilable Assadists and the country’s new rulers which didn’t erupt on December 8 last year is happening now.”[19] “Fighters backing the new Damascus regime attacked three villages near the coast, killing dozens of men in retaliation for attacks on government security forces by Assad loyalists… violence erupted on Thursday afternoon when pro-Assad militants ambushed Syrian security forces in the Latakia region”[20] “clashes between government forces and fighters loyal to Assad, which left more than 70 dead.”[21] “Assad loyalist gunmen overwhelmed government security forces during their ambush and briefly seized the hometown of the ousted president”[22] BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

No, they're not mere synonyms, as "Assadist" is barely used by any reliable sources, and therefore should not be the default term used on Wikipedia. It's basically a WP:fringe term. We don't generally call Trump supporters "Trumpists" in Wikipedia's voice just because a few call them that, we use what is most common inreliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I had misunderstood your objection. So you are happy with us talking about "Assad loyalists" for example, including in the infobox? I think that would be fine, and more neutral. BobFromBrockley (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

(I think some RSs use the term,[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] but agree it is less NPOV than "Assad loyalist". BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

That is basically what I've said all along, and it's a problem in several articles. That said, the mask has fallen in recent days, and the Golani regime will use any excuse to attack Syrian minorities as we are seeing with the Druze now. FunkMonk (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

WP:Fringe does not apply to the Guardian and/or SNHR

@FunkMonk The SNHR along with the SOHR has been used as a source for casualties in the Syrian civil war for years by media considered to be reliable sources. Sisuvia (talk) 04:45, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

This arbitrary removal of sourced content looks like an attempt at censorship and hiding facts in an encyclopaedia. I shall restore it. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what this is referring to, but no one says Guardian and SOHR are unreliable (except some in the comments here who apparently think it's only unreliable now that they're critisicing the new regime). FunkMonk (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

SOURCE DELETION

A preliminary 15-page report was released on March 23, claiming that jihadist groups have killed more than 2,246 civilians. This is a reliable source from the Human Rights and Humanitarian Follow-up Committee on the website of the human rights activist's foundation Haytham Manna: https://fhmsihr.org/eng/preliminary-report/. But someone is having fun deleting this source without providing an explanation. A supporter of HTS? Is it because this source contradicts the idea that the new Syrian regime is not moderate but rather jihadist? Skr561 (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

What "Human Rights and Humanitarian Follow-up Committee"? Do you think anyone can come up with bogus titles and make claims?

That is not a reliable source. That is a self-published source from Haytham Manna, a political chief of the SDC (a Kurdish seperatist group dominated by PYD; i.e, Syrian affiliate of PKK) group. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

yes and we should totally take the word of turkish proxys and neo con enemies of humanity in brussels 176.72.99.11 (talk) 07:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The Syrian Democratic Council (SDC) is the political wing of the Syrian Democratic Forces in the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES). The SDC's stated mission is working towards the implementation of a "Pluralistic, democratic and decentralized system for all of Syria".

You seem very biased. 2A02:3102:CB44:A80:6917:6DAB:A6E0:D2E5 (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Muhammad Jabir and Ghiath Dilla?

The article still hasn't been updated to mention how the warlord and businessman Muhamnad Jabir, ex leader of Desert Hawks, openly claimed respondibility for starting the attack against the interim government, and claimed Alawi massacres as a justification.

He also said that the field commander was Ghiath Dilla in the full interview, and denied being Assadist (he was forced to leave Syria in 2016/7). 188.236.173.95 (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Anti-Assad Alawites are being killed

Not to mention that, as the article states, those who were actually pro-Assad have already fled, the rest that are killed is simply due to sectarianism:[37] FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Alawite women are also being kidnapped en masse, for ransom or as sex slaves.[38][39] FunkMonk (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Christian text

The following text was included and removed, but does not seem to have been discussed here:

While there were reports of deaths of four to seven Christians in the conflict, Christian churches in Latakia strongly denied the occurrence of targeted attacks against Christians and issued a joint statement denouncing the proliferation of online disinformation.

References

BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

PS, I support using this. As far as I can say, it was inserted by Shadowwarrior8 and removed by Genabab, but I'm not sure. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley I don't recall removing it? Maybe I reverted something else and this got swept up? Or maybe I'm misremembering, I'm not sure. Genabab (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a view on its inclusion? BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bobfrombrockley I don't see why it shouldn't. Genabab (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

The "joint statement" listed was the "The Pastors of Christian Churches in Latakia" which is a very small group of Protestant churches. John X of Antioch, Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch which is the largest church in Syria [has explicitly stated both Alawites and Christians were targeted.] Such statements should absolutely be included in the article. Miaphysis (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Naming days

David O. Johnson what is the problem with naming days?[40] As this was a sequence of e vents mostly concentrated into a few days, isn't naming them helpful? BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

"Sunni civilians killed" ?

What is the evidence that pro-Assad insurgents killed Sunni civilians? There is no evidence, this needs to be corrected. It seems like someone is trying to exonerate the jihadists who killed thousands of Alawite civilians on the coast. Skr561 (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

There have been reports that the HTS-aligned militants killed Sunnis who tried to help Alawite civilians. FunkMonk (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes I know, but it is written in the infobox that Alawite militants killed Sunni civilians for sectarian reasons, which is false. Skr561 (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Would need some pretty solid sources for that, otherwise it can just be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Firstly the page is about the massacres of Alawites, not Sunnis. If there were massacres of Sunnis, then they can either have their own page or be included in Western Syria clashes (March 2025–present). Now, let's look at the sources given for "massacres of Sunnis":

1. Syrian Network for Human Rights - It specifically mentions "The non-state armed groups linked to the Assad regime carried out coordinated attacks targeting security and military sites affiliated with the transitional government’s Ministries of Defense and Interior", ergo, they targeted the Syrian military, not Sunni or any civilians of any sect whatsoever as the infobox gives a clear impression of. It mentions 211 civilians killed yet notwithstanding that this claim is dubious, there is no motive given especially not that those are Sunni civilians.

2. ‘They killed him in cold blood’: the cycle of revenge in north-west Syria - The Guardian - Zero mention of any anti-Sunni massacres by pro-Assad insurgents. It does speak of security forces targeting civilians.

3. Despite coastal massacres, there is still hope for the new Syria - The New Arab - makes reference of anti-Sunni massacres during the Assad regime but nothing recent. "During the war, dozens of massacres of Sunni women and children were perpetrated by irregular Alawite militias and organised by the regime precisely in order to create a Sunni backlash which would then terrify minority communities into loyalty. In this and other ways, the Alawite community has been manipulated, terrified, and made complicit by the regime. This is the sectarian dynamic which Syria urgently needs to break."

4. Syrian security forces execute 125 civilians in battle against Assad loyalists - The Guardian - Ditto, zero mentions of insurgents targeting civilians.

5.Syria’s new Islamist leader vows action after his soldiers massacre civilians - The Independent - ditto.

6. Institute for the Study of War - When it claims that the insurgents killed Sunni civilians, it cites itself in another article as a source where it speaks absolutely nothing about targeting Sunni civilians. Thus not a reliable citation whatsoever.

Sunni civilians must be removed from the infobox, it's a clear politically motivated red herring. WP:COI Miaphysis (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you, but the page is "protected against vandalism" so it's impossible to make changes. Skr561 (talk) 18:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

The first three of those (the ones currently in the infobox) do in fact mention Sunni civilians killed. See newer talk page discussion on same issue below BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

"Sunni Civillians Killed"

23:37, 10 May 2025 David O. Johnson talk contribs 199,362 bytes +3,096 Reverted edit; please discuss it in the Talk page; Undid revision 1289800704 by Ghebreigzabhier (talk)

Sunni civillians in the infobox are NOT RELEVANT to the scope of the article which primarily focuses on Alawites. It gives WP:UNDUE weight to a source and story regarding Sunnis in an infobox, not only bloating and distracting from the core focus of the article (alawites) but confusing the reader as well through being placed in such a critical part of the article - that is - the infobox. It should be removed, as @Miaphysis and others have discussed here just earlier and agreed upon. If this article was meant to be general enough to include this, then there's no point in having the more general article on western Syria clashes lying around. Ghebreigzabhier | ገብረግዛብሄር 17:19, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Other groups involved

100s, if not thousands of Christians in the region were killed as well and not just displaced. It’s also known that non militant Sunni civilians were responsible for the killings as well. Gamingbrohehe (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

As far as non militant Sunni civilians being involved in the killings, they are mentioned in the infobox, under the perpetrators template.

Have any reliable sources on the mass killing of Christians? I believe it was listed at one point, but it was removed due to lack of evidence, IIRC. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

What reliable sources report mass killings done by anyone but Sunnis under the new regime? FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The three sources in the infobox say Assad loyalists have killed Sunni civilians.

• SNHR recorded that at least 172 members of security, police, and military forces (Internal Security Forces and Ministry of Defense personnel) were killed by non-state armed groups linked to the Assad regime. Additionally, at least 211 civilians, including a humanitarian worker, were killed in direct shootings carried out by these groups. - SNHR
• Assad loyalists killed 225 civilians and 207 members of Syrian government forces, the war monitor added. - Guardian
• On March 6, Assadists in the coastal areas launched coordinated attacks on Syrian security forces, killing well over 100. Snipers also attacked and killed civilians, killing dozens. Hospitals and ambulances were targeted, and highways were closed by gunfire. - New Arab

We could add others:

• He explained how Assad loyalists had attacked and killed soldiers, police officers, and civilians - filming it and posting it on social media... The scene of some of the worst fighting happened in the city of Jableh when the pro-Assad militia attacked... Sunni civilians in the city of Jableh were also murdered by pro-Assad fighters, including Imad Bitar's father Talal... General Security convoys constantly patrol the city, home to Sunni civilians who were murdered like their Alawite neighbours. Imad Bitar's father Talal died after his car was fired upon by Assad fighters. I met him in their family home where he told me he wants peace but believes it will only happen when Assad's fighters are captured. Sky
• A journalist for a local newspaper, he said he was driving further north to cover reports of killings in villages when he was attacked by the Assad regime's remnant forces. "The place where I was targeted, they killed eight civilians," he told the ABC. - ABC
• At least 211 civilians, including a humanitarian worker, were killed in direct shootings carried out by these pro-Assad groups.- CBC
• Gunmen, some from the former regime, had ambushed military forces, checkpoints and headquarters along the coastline, the organisation said. One Sunni civilian witness called the attack "planned and prepared", while another told BBC Arabic that the indiscriminate firing on everyone including paramedics, was like something from the previous Assad regime. - BBC

Additionally, we have reports of Sunnis killed by Sunni sectarians, e.g. for sheltering Alawites or connections to the regime:

• The same day, two unidentified gunmen killed six people in the Homs’ neighborhood of Karm al-Zeitoun, including a woman and three of her children, and two Sunni civilians the family was hosting, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR). - Intstick

Not sure if police count as civilians or not, but lots of reports of police being killed by Assad loyalists, e.g.:

• State news agency Sana said a mass grave containing the bodies of security personnel had been found in the former president's hometown of Qardaha on Sunday. Turkey-based Syria TV cited residents as saying Assad loyalists had buried police killed in the recent fighting there. - BBC

BobFromBrockley (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

I also note that a comment above going through the same sources somehow missed the mentions of Sunni civilians killed. I already mentioned the first three currently in the infobox. Tw of next three, which were presumably in the infobox before, also do:

• SNHR has documented the killing of at least 240 people since Thursday, including 100 Syrian security forces and 15 civilians at the hands of Assad loyalists. - Guardian (from 7 March)
• The insurgents conducted a coordinated assault across coastal Syria and killed Sunni civilians and government militiamen. - ISW

Not sure how those unambiguous statements were missed. It is correct, though, that the Independent doesn't: it talks about "violence", "killings by both sides" (but doesn't specify if it was of civilians on both sides), but says the dead are " mostly civilians from the minority community". BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2025 (UTC)