Talk:Israeli invasion of Syria (2024–present)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2024 Kursk offensive which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:11, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Map

@Ecrusized, The map below is based on information from media sources as well as showcasing the confirmed advances as per the ISW, so wouldn't it be better and more accurate than the current map employing Liveuamap as a source (which itself relies almost solely on reports from X) Waleed (talk) 02:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ecrusized, if there's no objection, I'd change the map in infobox Waleed (talk) 11:04, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ecrusized, the map clearly sources ISW, the confirmed advances are per the ISW's released map and the lighter color indicates the advances not yet confirmed by ISW Waleed (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ecrusized, I know you've pinned me on commons, I'd love to partake in the discussion there but unfortunately commons is banned here in Pakistan and henceforth I'm unable to access it Waleed (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Objecting to this map as it incorrectly displays the Golan Heights as Israeli territory rather than Israeli-occupied; this must be fixed. "Non-confirmed advances" also reads like original research. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Map

@M Waleed: The commons discussion is irrelevant to WP. Please self-revert to remove the recently-added non-neutral map. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I know that this map is non-neutral and would support it's removal definitely if there's a suitable accurate alternative map available, which clearly isn't at the time being, yes Golan is internationally recognized as Syria which the map doesn't reflect but it's the most accurate one we've as of now, if there's another map accurate to the level of this one (the former used Liveuamap which isn't a reliable source) then I'd myself remove this one Waleed (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The fact that it shows the GH as "Israel" is inaccurate enough to not have it. It can not be used in its current state. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

The reason for me putting it in the map was it being more accurate than the current one, if there's anyone who can make a similar map without Golan, that'd be best Waleed (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request - Casualties and Losses

In the casualties and losses section of the infobox it states that 7 syrians have been killed but the source linked only mentions 1. Please change the Syrian deaths to 1 or alternatively link a source that says 7 have been killed. Fyukfy5 (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Now a new source has been added that ups the total toll to 18 civilians (11 from the new, 7 from the old) but along with the old source not actually mentioning 7 civilians, the interpretation of the new source has 2 issues:

1. It says it's either 11 or 6, there are differing reports in that 1 source itself.

2. It says that the casualties are mostly civilians, which means that even taking the highest estimates and the 7 civilians which the first source doesn't mention, it still would be 18 civilians total.

I implore a confirmed editor to fix the infobox because the number if casualties is an extremely important details and right now it's a complete mess. Fyukfy5 (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

1 additional thing, the original 1 person from the first source likely wasn't a civilian. He was armed and reportedly worked for a militia per that same source.

With all these factors, my suggestion is to change the infobox casualty count from 18 *civilians* to 7-12 *people* as well changing "taken prisoner" to "arrested" which is more accurate and the language the source itself uses. Fyukfy5 (talk) 11:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2024

remove Qatana from infobox, they never entered the city itself! per provided source 2003:100:3700:AA00:6966:FF25:813A:4A9A (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

First Israeli occupation of Syria in over 50 years

Hasn't Israel continuously occupied the Golan Heights during this period? It is very odd to say it is the first occupation in 50 years when they have been continuously occupying part of the country for decades. Requesting removal of this meaningless statement. 178.134.183.87 (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Better yet: "marked the first enlargement of the Israeli occupation of Syria In 50 years..." 178.134.183.87 (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Removed it since the statement is indeed dubious and wasn't backed up by the source cited. Cortador (talk) 11:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request

The last paragraph of the current events tab says that at least 11 syrians were killed in an airstrike. The source for that mentions 2 different sources, one says at least 11 the other says 6. The sentence should be changed to reflect that it's not known, either "multiple people" or something along the lines of "at least 6" Fyukfy5 (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Al-Mayadeen, the second of two different sources cited and the one which said 6, ended up raising the number to 11. However, I removed the term "at least" before 11, given 11 is the highest figure we have, and both SOHR or Al-Mayadeen never used the term "at least" in reference to the 11 figure anyway. UncleBourbon (talk)

Civilian casualties

There's currently only one source for civilian casualties; an SOHR report describing 1 killed. The casualties have been updated since the start of the invasion/bombing without adding additional sources, with the current casualties being listed as 18. However, checking all the SOHR reports I could find pertaining to the Israeli invasion/bombing, I've only been able to find at most 4 – ~14 civilian deaths; 1 being the originally cited example, 2 being victims of an airstrike in Daraa, 1 more under similar circumstances to the originally cited incident, and then 11 people, 'most' of them civilians, were killed by an explosion at a weapons depot near Rif Dimashq, although it's unclear if it was an Israeli airstrike or an accidental detonation of old ordnance. Even if all casualties from the Rif Dimashq explosion were counted as Israeli-caused deaths and civilians, that would still only account for 14 of the 18 deaths stated. It's possible I've missed 4 deaths in trying to scan through all SOHR reports, however for now I'm going to change the civilian deaths to 4, given the uncertainty around the Rif Damishq explosion. If the user(s) who initially added the 4 unaccounted for casualties can find the SOHR reports that cover them, then they can cite them before re-adding. I'd also be willing to hear opinions about how to list the Rif Dimashq explosion if at all; if it is to be listed, I'd suggest '4 – ~14 civilians killed, 1 – 5 soldiers killed,' to account for the deaths being 'mostly' civilian.UncleBourbon (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Minor Edit Request

In the last paragraph of the Background section it says "...launched a major offensive against the Syrian regime led by Bashar al-Assad." This could confuse some into the thinking that the offensive was led by Assad and not the regime and should be changed to "...launched a major offensive against the Bashar al-Assad led Syrian regime." Fyukfy5 (talk) 10:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Done. UncleBourbon (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Source on the Southern Operations Room

The article currently lists the Southern Operations Room as a unit involved, but has a "citation needed" template next to it. Here are a couple of sources that could be cited for their involvement:

• Al Nofal, Walid (10 December 2024). "'Decades to rebuild': Israel grabs land and wipes out Syria's arsenal". Translated by Nelson, Mateo. Syria Direct. Retrieved 3 January 2025.
• Levine, Abraham (30 December 2024). "The Northern Arena and the Shiite Axis – Weekly Review of Events and Key Data (16-22 Dec.)". Alma Research and Education Center. Retrieved 3 January 2025.

95m95 (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your recommendations. I've added the Syria Direct source given Syria Direct has it's own wikipedia page, but not the Alma source as it lacks one, and I'm unsure of it's reliability off-hand. I've instead opted for an article from The Times of Israel that essentially says the same thing (Southern Operations Room in control of the border; first established during the rebel offensive), minus the date of establishment. UncleBourbon (talk) 06:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2025

Add a caption to the image and remove Qatana from the infobox as they did not enter the city itself! 2003:100:3700:2400:2CBD:32ED:12CD:376C (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you clarify? The article contains a reference that says that Israeli forces did enter Qatana. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@The Mountain of Eden: They reported "reached" Qatana that does not mean entering it. You can check the map provided, why was not included under their control then?! You can include those regions instead Ma'ariya and Al-Wehda Dam per article, plus add a caption to the provided image. 2003:100:3700:2400:C44A:501A:4E8D:F8C0 (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Please note that the infobox already has a caption for the two images (of the jeeps and the map). The caption is immediately below the map. The caption currently reads:

"Top: Invading Israeli troops on the Syrian side of Mount Hermon, December 2024".

"Bottom: Map (as of 25 December)"

Please specify how you'd like to modify the caption (if at all). Also, please specify how exactly you'd like to modify the field of "Territorial exchange". --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

@The Mountain of Eden: I would recommend that you remove Qatana and replace it with Ma'ariya and Al-Wehda Dam which indicates that extent of the advancement. And Thank you for your polite response. 2003:100:3700:2400:C44A:501A:4E8D:F8C0 (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a reference that mentions that those two places are now occupied by the IDF? This reference does not mention the two places that you mention.

Regarding Qatana, rather than deleting it, wouldn't it make more sense to use words such as "territories adjacent to Qatana", since there is no dispute that the IDF "reached" the city? And to remove any ambiguities, we could add a footnote to state that the IDF "reached" the town, but did not enter it. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

The sources for Ma'ariya and Al-Wehda Dam, here and . Regarding Qatana, you can check the provided map, how far are they from "reaching" it? They are at the border with Lebanon not even close to it. If they are not far from Damascus itself would that be considered "reaching", therefore including the city with others mentioned means they are inside it which is false and misleading!

How does this edit look? Is that what you had in mind? or does it need to be adjusted? --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

@The Mountain of Eden: Fair enough. 2003:100:3700:2400:AC3C:D6C6:A96:5E22 (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

References

Requested move 19 December 2024

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. I will frame the thought process I went through as thoroughly as possible, if something is not clear please feel free to leave a comment on my talk page and I'll try to explain it more.

First there is a distinction that was raised between "invasion" vs. "incursion". For this RM I am defining an invasion as a large-scale military operation that has a longer durations and covers more areas than an incursion. An incursion is a shorter military operation, and is one that does not cover extensive territories for long periods of time.

This difference was raised in the current RM. Some folks noted that the term "invasion" is too broad and it might imply something more permanent. Others noted that "incursion" has been used historically for such operations.

A point that I would like to note is the duration and scope of this conflict. This RM started ~ 40 days ago so some of the points about duration should be taken in the context that this RM has gone on for awhile and things have changed over that time. A point that was raised was that Netanyahu was quoted as remaining in Syria at least until early 2025. This gives weight to this being an invasion rather than an incursion because it's not a series of short, isolated military operations and is something that is being sustained over a period of time.

An argument against incursion and for invasion has also been rooted in the consistency across articles. Other articles have used the term incursion for operations that are shorter than invasions. I believe an issue that was not raised here is that in the media the term invasion is more often used in the context of official actions between states. Syria is only a semi-functional state right now and Israel would never openly declare hostilities as there is an active UN buffer zone in place. This is only here to provide context to the naming and possible changes in the sources over time since this has been open for a very long time and were not used in establishing a rough consuseus.

Further along those lines when looking at the size and scope of the conflict the term invasion might avoid redundancy when other incursions have been described in contexts involving ongoing conflicts. An example here would be describing the operations and actions happening in Ukraine.

After all of this I am closing this as no consensus. It is challenging to write and name articles that cover events that are happening in real time or that are in recent memory. It is also challenging for sources to settle on verbage and wording to describe such events until some time has passed. I'm sure this RM will come back again at some point and it should be expected as part of the natural evolution of an article and as new material/sources become available. Thank you everyone for your participation in this RM, if you think I've made an error in judgment or missed a key point you are more than welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Please assume WP:GOODFAITH if you do. If you disagree strongly you are more than welcome to take this to WP:MR. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

---

Israeli invasion of Syria (2024–present) → Israeli incursions into Syria (2024–present) – Adhering to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, which mean we can't claim a country has invaded another unless reliable sources say so. As per usual Wikipedia policy, remember that results are determined by consensus of reliable sources, not by votes or numbers. Please provide reliable sources to support your arguments. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: this move request was changed from 2024 Israeli invasion of Syria → 2024 Israeli incursions into Syria as a result of an MRV decision on 12 January 2025. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Support. APThe Associated Press^{corrected link} have explicitly contradicted claims of an "Israeli invasion of Syria", quoting experts as saying "Israel isn't currently trying to change the border or prepare for an invasion into Syria". I'd also note that Wikipedia's misuse of the term "invasion" has helped spread misinformation on social media (e.g. unsubstantiated claims that "Israel is moving on Damascus"). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Someone at a "Tel Aviv think-tank" founded by a former IDF Military Intelligence Chief saying not an invasion does not equal "AP has explicitly contradicted" invasion. Also, would even the think tank person say the same thing today after all the events on the ground and statements by Israeli spokesmen and others that have transpired since then. The current title does not imply anyone is or was "moving on Damascus" any more than the recent invasion of Lebanon implied someone was moving on Beirut.--Brian Dell (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Support. It may not be perfect or the final page title in 15 years, but it's a more accurate title today. Though I might nitpick and suggest it should be 2024 Israeli Defense Forces incursions into Syria or 2024 Israeli military incursions into Syria to be more WP:PRECISE about who is doing what. I still prefer 2024 Israeli military operation in Syria over either one as while it may seem a little bland it's open enough in time and scope to cover the ground, air, and information domain actions that might otherwise be covered separately, and even if they are it works as a parent article if we spin off individual articles for each of those things over time; it works regardless of whether the Israeli name for the operation becomes common usage or not; and it works regardless of whether Israel's presence is temporary or not. But I think at least the RM is a step in the right direction towards that, hence my support ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Basically agree with everything said above—I suggested "incursion" because it seemed to have more support in the last RM than 2024 Israeli military operations in Syria. If nobody objects to that title we can use it instead. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

@Swatjester: 2024 Israeli Defense Forces incursions into Syria is such a funny wording. Per definition, "defence forces" are supposed to be standing on their sovereign land, not to be illegally standing on sovereign land belonging to other four different countries. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that "Israeli Defense Forces" is an English translation of an acronym that more directly translates to "Army for the Defense of Israel" and that all armies quite frequently conduct actions outside of their own borders to support the defense of their country, we're not debating the naming choices of the IDF here, so please stick to the topic at hand. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Can you not see how having "Israeli Defense" in the title of an article about a military operation that is objectively offensive looks like subjective spin?--Brian Dell (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd submit that's a pretty nonsensical interpretation, given that "Israeli Defense Forces" is the common name of the entity (and used in the same manner as the Japan Self-Defense Forces which routinely engage in non-defensive operations in the Middle East including establishment of *permanent* military basing on foreign sovereign territory), and there's no clear consensus that the operation is "objectively offensive" in nature. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The case for using a belligerent state's preferred euphemism only follows when you frame the issue like you do. This is like saying 2003 invasion of Iraq should be retitled Operation Iraqi Freedom because that is the common name that the U.S. government uses for its military action.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

You mean when it's framed the way a typical person would think of it? Perish the thought. You're arguing that the IDF cannot be called the IDF. That does not seem like a good faith argument to me. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:55, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

No I am not. I am saying there are no grounds for putting IDF into the title of this article.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

In most cases I would agree with you, which is why I didn't suggest it for the versions that don't need to explicitly specify this for precision (in the case of "invasion" or "military operation" as those already imply the IDF) and why I specifically did suggest it for "incursion", which does not carry such an implication (as there can be non-military incursions). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a WP:RS that call it an "incursion"? TurboSuperA+ (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Non-standard title, "incursion" is not used for military/conflict-related articles on enwiki, neither is including military operation neutral (there is a reason Russian invasion of Ukraine is titled the way it is). When a sovereign state conducts an incursion into another [and temporarily occupies its area] invasion is what we call it, moreover we have a precedent for this in the Arab–Israeli conflict: Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (disambiguation), Israeli invasion of Lebanon (2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon), Israeli invasion of Syria, and I see no reason to deviate from our existing norm. Gotitbro (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  And the AP report cited in the nom vote, does not contradict claims of an invasion, it explicitly states that Israeli forces are now occupying the Syrian buffer zone of the Golan Heights and have 'incurred' into it (the term merely being a synonym of invasion (see Incursion (disambiguation))). Further calling standardized application of enwiki's MOS:MIL titles 'misuse' and claiming that this has contributed to misinfo elsewhere [social media] is entirely unfounded (the same AP report simply states this "Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani, an Israeli military spokesperson, said "reports circulating in the media about the alleged advancement of Israeli tanks towards Damascus are false." He said Israeli troops are stationed within the buffer zone in order to protect Israel."). Gotitbro (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, I inserted the wrong link—the relevant section is here, under the heading "Is Israel invading Syria?". AP quotes experts as saying Israel isn't currently trying to change the border or prepare for an invasion into Syria. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Wikipedia uses "incursion" to describe incursions and "invasion" to refer to invasions. Examples include the 2023 Jenin incursion, the Hamad City incursion, and outside of the Arab-Israeli conflict we have titles like 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq or 2023 Belgorod Oblast incursions. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Of the examples provided: Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (disambiguation) is a disambiguation page that leads to only one out of five articles with "invasion" in the title, from the current conflict (and whose title is disputed and was not originally "invasion" but "ground operation"). Israeli_invasion_of_Lebanon is the same scenario -- a disambiguation of 6 articles and 4 see-alsos, only one of which uses "invasion", and once again a disputed title from the current conflict. The third link is the aforementioned Lebanon article. And finally, Israeli invasion of Syria is again the same scenario -- a disambiguation page with only a single "invasion" usage, referring to this page. Every single one of those examples is a recent post-2023 change initiated after the 10/7 conflict began; let's not pretend there's any kind of long-standing consensus in favor of using "invasion" in this manner. Statistically, the overwhelming consensus is otherwise -- almost every single disambiguation link *except* the disputed ones uses verbiage other than "invasion." ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 04:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Support For reasons outlined by the nomination. My slight preference would be for 2024 Israeli military operations in Syria. The current title does not accurately reflect how this incursion is being described and gives a misleading impression as to its scale. Rafts of Calm (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC) WP:ARBECR Adumbrativus (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose I initially was on the fence on the first days, I opposed the initial RM as it seemed to be more than just a limited raid.

Israeli forces have lingered in Syria for over two weeks now and are expanding their operations with no sign of stopping, many population centres have fallen under their control and let's not forget the intense air bombardment campaign. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Source? What major population center has "fallen" in the past week? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

The most recent population centre to fall was Mar’iyya, whose residents protested the Israeli occupation and were shot at as a result

إصابة شاب سوري برصاص الجيش الإسرائيلي في درعا The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Ma'ariya is not a major population center, or any kind of population center, it's a small village of about 1,000 people. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Is that not a population center? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Depends on the definition. Under the U.S. legal definition, no -- that term requires both a certain minimum population level and a certain minimum population density -- Ma'ariyah is just on the cusp of the former and likely below the latter. I have no idea what the Syrian definition is. It's certainly not a "major" population center, and does not fit the common military understanding of the term, fwiw. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Clear invasion (parallel to "Russian incursions into Ukraine"), we already saw that on the Golan Heights. Israeli ministers and MPs even recently claimed they 'conquered' Mount Hermon. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 15:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Support as it clearly isn't a full-scale invasion and as per gotitbro. Oppose 2024 Israeli military operations in Syria as it would be misleading and downplaying the incursions and temporary seizure of the buffer zone and beyond. Theofunny (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, Israel has violated a ceasefire line and invaded further into Syrian territory, occupied more lands, depopulated villages and shown no signs of withdrawing. Its clearly an invasion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Once again, source? I have 4 opposes and zero sources for their claims. What lands have been occupied in the past week? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Two additional villages occupied today:Occupying Israeli forces open fire on Syrians protesting seizure of 2 villages in Daraa province--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:AAPOLITICS—AA is Turkish state-owned media, and considered generally unreliable for controversial or political issues. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't say AA is unreliable. AA reports are generally true regarding territorial conflicts etc. Show me one source that refutes this claim (source put by Supreme Deliciousness). Beshogur (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

In addition to what Closed Limelike Curves mentioned about the reliability of AA, the source does not make the claim of "depopulated villages" either, (nor does it explain the source for its conclusion that the villages were "occupied" or "seized").⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose as sources such as Middle East Eye unequivocally call it an invasion. More to the point, the title should reflect and summarize the content of the article. On that point, besides the obviously relevant fact that Israeli leadership has rejected the 1974 ceasefire and border agreement, if not already in the article I note that a NY Times headline is "Israel Says Its Troops Will Stay in Seized Territory for Now," a Times of Israel story is titled "One hurt after IDF opens fire at group protesting Israeli presence in south Syria" and AP has a story titled Syrian villagers near the Golan Heights say Israeli forces are banning them from their fields that quotes locals calling it an "occupation" that followed a "penetration". These events and their descriptions vary but they are are all consistent with a particular phenomenon having occurred: an invasion! The called for move here strikes me as like taking an article that says "the subject walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck" in its body and saying it ought to be titled something other than "Duck"--Brian Dell (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

such as implies Middle East Eye isn't the only source—could you provide those other sources? I've never heard of it before now, and the article on it is raising some major red flags about the source's reliability. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Such as reporting by the Tehran Times meaning sources you would of course think too closely associated with Israel's enemies but how does that make sources associated with Israel's friends the final word? For what it is worth, HRW, Amnesty International, NYT, WaPo, Deutsche Welle have all referenced MEE’s articles. This source counting is not central to the point I make above anyway.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't care if the sources are Israel's "friends" or "enemies"; I care if they satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines for reliability. Ye shall know them by their sources; if your second example of a reliable source after MEE is the Tehran Times, I don't think I can really trust your judgment on MEE. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

A lecture about careful sourcing from the person who opened this discussion by trying to pass off a claim from someone with Israel's leading security think tank as an Associated Press claim. The NYT and WaPo also regularly cite the Tehran Times but it is your source assessment we should defer to? Al Jazeera is analogous to the Tehran Times except Doha controlled instead of Tehran controlled and Al Jazeera is RS.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight; I'm just a guy who read the clickbaity title for this article, was initially shocked by it, and am now very annoyed that the article text doesn't back it up. (For the record, I'm skeptical that Israel's actions here are actually necessary for their security, as they claim. That doesn't matter. We still need to uphold WP:NPOV and stick to the sources.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Incursion is euphemistic language, and Israel's actions meet the definition of an invasion. The minimum level of evidence required here should not be reliable sources using the word invasion, which they may have political or financial incentives not to do. Rather, we should look at whether sources are reporting facts that satisfy the definition of an invasion. For example, CNN said that Israel seized territory in Syria. When a country sends its army to seize the territory of another sovereign nation, that's an invasion. It always has been and always will be, even if every invader in history has said that in their case, it isn't so. As editors we must retain our license to call a spade a spade, or else the encyclopedia will reflect whatever bias is held by our society. We'll have an encyclopedia of Russian invasions and Israeli or American incursions, special operations, etc. That's unreliable and undesirable. Unbandito (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

There are two issues with argument. (1) I don’t think the comparison with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is fair or accurate given the vastly different scale and aims (initially) of the Russian leadership. I don’t agree with your suggestion that there is bias or double standards. (2) Regardless of whether or not we like the terminology being used, our role is to reflect accurately what sources are saying - not seek to define this ourselves. Rafts of Calm (talk) 15:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC) WP:ARBECR Adumbrativus (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. Sources don't seem to agree what to call this military operation. However, since this appears to be a land grab, I think "invasion" is the appropriate term. If this had just been operations like the destruction of the Syrian navy, this would be different. Cortador (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per others. Not a standard name + a conflicting name. We cannot just rely on a single source, many other sources also saying this invasion. Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

If this is true, please provide one. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 10:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose It is a clear invasion. They have literally bombed their entire air force and dont plan to leave. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC) WP:ARBECR Adumbrativus (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment A lot of original research here. Reminder that it's not for us to determine whether or not this is an invasion or an incurison etc, but to determine what the best sources call it. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 18:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Support: Way too many people here are saying "it should be 'invasion' because it is one" or "I don't like the proposed title"; sources overwhelmingly do not use the term "invasion", so neither should we; "incursion" BBC speaks to Syrians watching Israel’s incursion As Israel advances on a Syrian buffer zone, it sees peril and opportunity and "offensive" Maps: See Israel’s Moves in Syria Since al-Assad Was Toppled are both terms used by reliable sources, and I would support both the proposed title or "2024 Israeli offensive into Syria". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

As per @Flemmish Nietzsche, I'd support Offensive Waleed (talk) 02:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

My initial instinct was to oppose, but I think it would indeed be better to support "Offensive" per @Flemmish Nietzsche's reasoning Thereppy (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Do sources overwhelmingly use "offensive"? You are not making a strong case by naming one source that uses the term once. Cortador (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources don't agree if it is an offensive or an incursion either. A lot of them have been using the term "seizing land," does that mean we should name this page "2024 Israeli Land Seizures in Syria"? This operation simply has no standard name among sources, and we shouldn't make one up. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Do reliable sources actually argue that it is not an invasion? The majority of Western sources have used weasel words like "crossed into" (NYT) or "seizing positions" (BBC). Mondoweiss, Middle East Eye, and The New Arab all argue it is an invasion and use the term- of course this doesn't establish that "invasion" is used by RS as these are all perennial sources, but neither do the preceding seriously argues that it isn't an invasion.

The only source I could find that tries to argue it isn't is from Israel itself, a Tel-Aviv based think tank, and at that point we might as well take Russian institutions at face value when they say that the invasion of Ukraine is a "special military operation." Really, although I concede that the term "invasion" isn't used by most RS, there also aren't any terms that they consistently use any other term besides euphemisms of crossing a border with an armed military, which is what the word "invasion" means. Using the word "incursion" is therefore also unsupported by RS, prioritizing a word used by some outlets for arbitrary reasons over others, and we should retain the current title until RS reliably uses a proper term. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, As I said in the previous move requests, "this article is about a country's invasion of another sovereign country's territory through military practices. Airstrikes or other attacks are part of this military occupation." What are the reliable sources? Haaretz? The Jerusalem Post, The Times Israel..?? Attempts to soften with words are not appropriate. Per WP:NPOVTITLE - Adem (talk) 10:53, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

What would be a "neutral point of view title" is determined by what sources say, not what you think; right now, based off usage in reliable sources (however "correct" they may be), using the term 'invasion' in the title is actually not neutral. "we should call it an invasion because it is one" is not a valid reason unless supported by reliable sources. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Support per nomination.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 02:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Quite a few sources still have called it an invasion and its obviously an invasion Yesyesmrcool (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose It is very clearly an invasion. "Invasion" works much better than "Incursions", which sounds just like "Special military operation". Setarip (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. The literal definition of whitewashing. It is an invasion as any other invasion is. No matter what Israeli officials say on the topic, it is intrusive entering of a military. They may say "it's limited", sure, but if you ask "How long will it stay like this?", "How long will your forces occupy?", you won't be met with any answer. PLMandarynka (talk) 23:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments about the original closure

@Andre Farfan: -- you neglected to provide an explanation for your non-admin closure of the above discussion. Simply closing as "no consensus" without any explanation of how you came to that conclusion is unacceptable. Please do so immediately, to prevent the need to revert the closure or open up a noticeboard discussion. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 22:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC) Yeah, I think this was probably a complex closure that's not a good candidate for NAC. No offense meant to @Andre Farfan—making mistakes is how non-admins learn, and usually RfM is a good place for NACs!  :) The issue is there's a huge disconnect between replies that: Do/don't provide sources. Do/don't cite or conform to Wikipedia policy. Come from more vs. less-experienced editors. Come from editors heavily involved in this topic area vs. not (see Wikipedia:PIA5). So in this case, an admin will probably have to weigh these against each other. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

• Relisting comment: Relisted as the result of a move review at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 December. As noted in the move review closure, there was a different RM affecting this article during the time while the move review was ongoing, and it was closed as moved. Editors have understood that other RM to be about a separate issue (namely, the manner of including year(s) in the title) and editors have not challenged it. In light of that move, this RM is relisted under the headline Israeli invasion of Syria (2024–present) → Israeli incursions into Syria (2024–present), rather than the original 2024 Israeli invasion of Syria → 2024 Israeli incursions into Syria. As usual, RM participants are not limited to the headline proposal and are free to propose/support other titles. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Support original proposal or "offensive". It does not matter whether this is an invasion or not. What matters is whether reliable sources call it one. I have not seen any evidence that they do, only vague claims, original research, and unreliable sources like the Tehran Times. The most convincing argument above came from Flemmish Nietzsche, who showed that two alternative terms are indeed used in reliable sources. Toadspike [Talk] 09:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are enough sources calling it an invasion

"Israel's invasion of Syria"

"Israel has also launched a ground invasion"

"The Israeli invasion"

"Israel's recent strikes and invasion of Syria"

"the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) launched an invasion of southwestern Syria"

"Israelis Invade Syria" [title] "land grabs like this" [in article]

"Israel's invasion" [title]

"Israel has invaded and bulldozed farmland in parts of Syria's Quneitra province"

"Israel mounted an invasion of the Syrian province of Quneitra"

"ISRAEL was condemned today for its invasion of Syria"

"The Israeli invasion of Syria" TurboSuperA+ (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to break these into three broad categories:

1. Sources 1, 6, 10, and 11: unreliable. Counterpunch is rated unreliable at WP:RSP; the Tehran Times is, uhh, the Tehran Times; and WP:RSP says it's unclear if the Communist-operated MorningStar does any factual reporting at all, but is clearly a biased/partisan source that should be limited to attributed opinions. #1 (by Middle East Eye) is marginal at best.
2. Sources 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8: reliable but partisan on the Arab-Israeli conflict. For naming questions, we should be deferring to the most neutral sources we can find.
3. Sources 3 and 5: reliable but out-of-context. Both should be included and weighed in the decision, but are quoted for a single word ("invade"), when the broader context supports the argument that the article title is too expansive.
   • Newsweek emphasizes the term "incursion", calling it an incursion by Israeli forces in the first sentence.
   • Newsweek later describes an Israeli invasion of southwestern Syria—not Syria in general. Similarly, El País describes a demilitarized perimeter on the Syrian side, which is the territory it has now invaded. In other words, both are clear about limiting the use of the term "invasion" to the Golan Heights, which makes the operation's limited extent clear to readers. There's also always the possibility of WP:CITOGENESIS here, as the pieces were published after this article was written.

– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew that not all of them would be WP:RS, so it's nice to have a breakdown.

Regarding word choice between "invasion", "incursion" and "offensive", the important part is what the word implies regarding both scope and duration.

An offensive is a battle that is part of a larger war and is usually preceded and followed by other offensives, e.g. the Tet Offensive is described as "a major escalation and one of the largest military campaigns of the Vietnam War" with Vietnam War being its own article.

An incursion is usually a short-lived foray or a limited offensive that is also a part of a larger war, invasion or campaign, e.g. the Kursk_offensive_(2024–present) is described as follows: "On 6 August 2024, during the Russian invasion of Ukraine as part of the Russo-Ukrainian War, the Armed Forces of Ukraine launched an incursion" Another example is Dnieper_campaign_(2022–present)#Incursion_at_Krynky where the "Incursion at Krynky" is part of the Dnieper Campaign.

An invasion on the other hand is usually done on several fronts, and can encompass many offensives and incursions. For example the Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine has a section titled "Russian offensives and Ukrainian incursion (April 2024 – present)" and the invasion happened from 3 different fronts/directions.

Furthermore, Netanyahu has stated that Israel plans to hold the captured territories for a while, "until at least the end of 2025"

This means that the Israeli invasion is neither limited in scope geographically (the map in the infobox shows 4 different arrows across the whole length of the Israeli-Syrian border) nor is it limited in duration, and the invasion is made up of several separate offensives/incursions. TurboSuperA+ (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: It's pretty ridiculous to accuse El Pais of citogenesis, or of various other sources to not know what they are saying, or for the term "invasion" when expressed in a phrase in reference to a portion of a territory to not also indicate an invasion of that wider territory. There is no actual in distinction there. Everyone knows what invasion means – it is straightforward English – and that it clearly applies in the context here. That there may be a current shortage of the term in some Western sources is no different from there being a shortage of the term "war" in Russian or CIS countries after it began what it called its "special military operation". We have a specific MOS:EUPHEMISM guideline affording us the discretion to not pander to obviously obfuscatory news speak. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Aside from the fact that this is clearly an invasion (one without provocation I might add), let's look at other pages for military operations titled "incursion" for reference on how to apply the term. I've found 19 pages in total, with 3 being disambiguation pages, and 2 being pages covering series' of incursions. Of these, 1 is a U.S. incursion into Mexico, 2 are Ukrainian incursions into Russia, 6 Turkish incursions into Iraq, and 10 Israeli incursions, 9 into the West Bank and 1 into Gaza. Of the 14 pages covering specific incursions, 8 last under 1 week, 12 under 2 weeks, and all under 1 month. The two outliers lasting more than 2 weeks are both the Ukrainian cases. Context is important for those latter two cases as well; Ukraine is currently enduring a Russian invasion, so titling the Ukrainian incursions as invasions would be redundant. The new Syrian government has neither invaded or taken any offensive or otherwise threatening actions against Israel, so this redundancy is not shared.

This Israeli operation meanwhile has been going on for over a month, and as mentioned by TurboSuperA+, Netanyahu has stated his intent to remain in the country 1 year minimum. The justification and intent is to create a "buffer zone" for what is already a buffer zone against a sovereign state that has taken no offensive or even remotely threatening action, unlike all other incursions that occurred in an environment of existing conflict. These facts make this operation entirely unlike any other military operation titled as "incursion" on this site.

I've made a table for these pages below so others can check for themselves. UncleBourbon (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your table! It really helps illustrate your point and the arguments of many who oppose the name change. NewishIdeas (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Page	Page type	Country	Duration
Candelaria border incursion of 1919	Single incursion	United States	1 week, 3 days
Turkish incursion into northern Iraq	Disambiguation	Turkey
August 1986 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq	Single incursion	Turkey	1 day
March 1987 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq	Single incursion	Turkey	1 day
December 2007 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq	Single incursion	Turkey	1 week, 3 days
2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq	Single incursion	Turkey	1 week, 2 days
March 2016 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq	Single incursion	Turkey	2 days
2023 Jenin incursion	Disambiguation	Israel
2023 Nablus incursion	Disambiguation	Israel
January 2023 Jenin incursion	Single incursion	Israel	1 day
February 2023 Nablus incursion	Single incursion	Israel	1 day
Israeli incursions in Tulkarm	Series of incursions	Israel
April 2023 Nablus incursion	Single incursion	Israel	1 day
2023 Belgorod Oblast incursions	Single incursion/Series of incursions	Ukraine	2 weeks (longest single incursion)
June 2023 Jenin incursion	Single incursion	Israel	1 day
Israeli incursions in the West Bank (2023–present)	Series of incursions	Israel
Hamad City incursion	Single incursion	Israel	1 week, 6 days
March 2024 western Russia incursion	Single incursion	Ukraine	3 weeks, 5 days

• oppose sources are using different words to describe this, and it seems like “western” sources are less likely to call it an invasion. My understanding of the word “incursion” is that it refers to a short-term invasion or a series of short-term invasions, much like UncleBourbon has shown in their table. Given that this has been continuously ongoing for more than a month with Netanyahu pledging to “occupy” it for at least a year, 1 I don’t think “incursions” is the right word. I am wondering if at some point in the future this will be called an “occupation”Rainsage (talk)
• Oppose. Even the nominator here acknowledges that some of the sources that use the word "invasion" are reliable albeit biased (yet bias is no reason to reject reliability). Israeli newspaper Ynet also uses the term "invasion"Erdogan urges West, US to halt Israeli invasion of Syria.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Ultimately, though, there is no WP:COMMONNAME here, so we must go by WP:NDESC. There is nothing POV about calling this an invasion. Further, as UncleBourbon shows, WP:CONSISTENCY is violated by calling this an incursion instead of invasion. SwatJester's proposal above is less WP:CONCISE than the current title. I hope everyone can make policy-based arguments.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 17:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Perhaps trivially less WP:CONCISE, in exchange for being more WP:PRECISE. It's always a tradeoff. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. An invasion is an invasion and there are plenty of sources to back this up. --Plumber (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's an invasion. ItsNotGoingToHappen (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CONCISE and is clearly not an incursion. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 20:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

References

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

De facto leader

As Al-Sharaa has now been appointed the presidency, should mentions of "de facto" be removed? Or should they say "then de facto leader"? 675930s (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Fixing

In the Israeli side casualties you wrote "multiple wounded and one vehicle destroyed" but according to the source link you put near it, the source says it's reported by the IDF that there are no casualties and there is no mention in the article of wounded soldiers or destroyed vehicle. Facts1223 (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

You lost me. The infobox says that there is a dispute. It says that one side says no casualties, and the other side says that there were some casualties. Are you saying that there is no dispute? --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I am just saying that no casualties were on the Israeli side in the fire opening according to the IDF and it's also not wrriten in the source. Facts1223 (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

You lost me again. The reference says "In a statement attributed to the group, it said the attack on Israeli soldiers was the start of its operations "against the Israeli enemy," noting that it had targeted "the Israeli occupation army in the Quneitra countryside for the first time" and claimed that it injured "a number of soldiers and damaged military vehicles."" --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

maybe it was a hidden part I didn't notice, sorry for the mistake but it still doesn't say a vehicle was destroyed, it says only damaged vehicles. Facts1223 (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The reference in the article references the statement on X (formerly Twitter) by the group making the claim. Unfortunately, the statement on X is shown as an image, so I don't know how to translate it.

I am therefore open to adding the template {{Better source needed |reason=Citation does not directly support what is being said in article, and relies on a tweet in a foreign language}}. Do you think that would be the proper way to go about it?

I know that there are ways to translate text in a foreign language that is presented as an image, but I don't know how to go about doing it. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 23 February 2025

I believe the writing in this article is somewhat incorrect and or biased, and should thus be changed, specifically "On 11 February 2025, the IDF announced that they would be permanently occupying their newly gained territory in Syria, as opposed to their earlier position of their occupation being "temporary."" and "On February 11, 2025, Israel dropped the illusion that their occupation of new Syrian territory was temporary, making an announcement that the IDF will incorporate the new territory into the Israeli occupied Golan Heights.". From the sources I have seen, it is not described as permanent, but as "indefinite", which are not the same thing. Diff:

−

ORIGINAL_TEXT

+

CHANGED_TEXT

147.235.199.69 (talk) 18:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done, the source cited for both claims only says that Israel's occupation would be prolonged, not permanent. Chomik! (talk?) 19:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

“Assad loyalists” faction in israel’s invasion infobox ?

I dont think assad loyalist faction in the infobox makes any sense or is relevant in anyway to the article of israel invasion of syria, i think it belongs to syria civil war article, not here.

i think it it should be removed from the infobox, but i would like to discuss it here first. Stephan rostie (talk) 04:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we should remove the Assad loyalists. I'm not really opposing your idea but all I'm saying is the Assad loyalists are a major thorn to the current Syrian government. It's pretty obvious that the Assad loyalists are major player here since this event would significantly vary without one another. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:39, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

We dont much disagree. my take is that they are a major player in the Syrian civil war, not in the 2024 Israeli invasion of Syria Stephan rostie (talk) 08:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

In this particular article, the so-called "Assad Loyalists" were added because they attacked Israel, not the Syrian Government.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-troops-operating-in-syria-buffer-zone-come-under-fire-in-1st-such-incident/ Viral weirdo (talk) 08:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

Has Israel harmed civilians in Syria?

Moving this discussion here. The question is has Israel harmed civilians in Syria, both by airstrikes and shooting of civilians by ground forces, some of which resulted in injuries and some resulted in deaths, and has Israel taken civilians as prisoner? The answer to all the questions appears to be yes:

• "“During the protest, the Israeli forces stationed at the Al-Jazeera barracks opened fire directly at the demonstrators, injuring a young man in the leg.” SOHR said".[1]
• "A child among at least five civilians were injured, one seriously, in gunfire by Israeli forces in the villages of Suwaisah and Al-Dawayah Al-Kabirah, as Israeli forces were attempting to disperse protestors"[2]
• "Israeli forces also advanced close to civilian houses in Al-Hamidyah village in northern Al-Qunaitrah, 100 meters, after opening the area’s gate and conducting intensive fire-combing operations. Furthermore, Israeli forces shot dead a young man from Jabatha Al-Khashab town in northern Al-Qunaitrah countryside."[3]
• "The Israeli army arrested a civilian and injured another by shooting at him in the vicinity of the town of Qudna in the Quneitra countryside in southern Syria."[4]
• "Near the port city of Latakia, Israel targeted an air defence facility and damaged Syrian naval ships as well as military warehouses. At least two civilian casualties have been confirmed, with further casualties feared as the airstrikes persist."[5]
• "The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said that 11 people were killed, mostly civilians. It said there was a blast at a weapons depot belonging to the former Syrian regime and that it was “likely resulting from an Israeli attack.”"[6]
• "French journalist Sylvain Mercadier was detained for over four hours by Israeli forces in Syria while covering the army's advance in the country."[7]
  • "Jumhuriya.net said however that its journalists were still detained by Israel, despite clearly wearing vests indicating their status as members of the press."[8]
• "On February 15, 2025, Israeli occupation forces intercepted a SARC ambulance in the Rasm al-Share’ area of rural Quneitra governorate and detained its four-member crew—three volunteers and a driver..."[9]
• "Locals have reported Israeli encroachment on their land, unauthorised arrests, road closures, and housing raids,"[10]
• "Israeli forces arrested a young man from Kudna – Mazra’ah Al-Fityan village an hour before Iftar and took him to an unknown destination, amid growing concerns over ongoing arrests and rising security tensions in the area."[11]

Thus, I propose we summarize this in the lead as: "Israeli soldiers have shot at civilians, Israeli airstrikes have killed civilians, and Israel has taken civilians as prisoner." VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 05:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I would be extremely wary about using SOHR as a source for statements like this, particularly given the less than two weeks old discussion of their reliability at RSN, which identified several areas of inaccuracies in their reporting; a general consensus even from editors broadly in support of them as an organization that we should avoid overly relying on their data, and a clear consensus that attribution should be required when used.Further, the purpose of an article lede is to summarize only the most significant points of the article body; I do not think that any of these events are significant to the article. I also see a complete lack of any attempt to balance this addition to the lede with any Israeli statements that may contradict these claims -- they may exist in the body, but if they're not likewise added to the lede it would create an NPOV issue. So for that reason, I'd oppose adding this summarization to the lede. This information belongs in the body, where it can be properly attributed and given the appropriate degree of weight. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:45, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll let the RSN discussion conclude/close. But there are non-SOHR sources above, including other RS that quote the RS, who have mentioned that Israel has harmed civilians in Syria. Why would it be an NPOV issue to mention civilian harm to the lead? In most articles, like Gaza war, October 7 attacks etc we do mention civilian harm in the lead, if it has been verified.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent Thank you for sharing our discussion. First and foremost, I want to clarify that the question I asked you was not whether Israel harmed Syrian civilians, but the reliability of the sources you are citing. However, that is not the focus here.

Now, let's address the issue you raised in the current discussion.

Regarding your statement that "Israeli soldiers have shot at civilians", the sources you provided paint a complex picture:

• This source supports the claim that one protester was wounded in the leg by Israeli fire, but it is unclear from the source whether he was a civilian or a militant.
• This SOHR source says that the IDF wounded five Syrian civilians.
• Another SOHR source states that the IDF killed a young man, but it is unclear from the source whether he was a civilian or a militant.
• This source reports that the IDF wounded one person who, according to his own account, was gathering wood in the area.

From this, it appears that there are reports of seven people (Some of them may be civilians, and some may not) being wounded by Israeli fire and one individual being killed, though his status remains uncertain. Given this, the information does not warrant inclusion in the lead section and may be more appropriate for the body of the article.

Regarding your statement that "Israeli airstrikes have killed civilians", one of your sources does indicate that an Israeli airstrike killed two civilians. However, it explicitly states that the strike targeted Syrian military facilities, and the civilian casualties were unintended. As for this other source, I have already pointed out that even SOHR itself states that it is uncertain whether the strike in question was carried out by Israel. This is why this article does not explicitly attribute it to Israel in the body text. So why are you insisting that it be stated in the lead as though it is an undisputed fact?

Regarding your statement that "Israel has taken civilians as prisoners", all the sources you cited use the terms "arrest" or "detained", which is fundamentally different from the term "prisoner" that you insist on using. For instance:

• This article describes how Israel detained a French journalist and a Syrian lawyer, but they were held for only four hours. That constitutes an detained, not taking someone as a "prisoner".
• Similarly, this source mentions a three-hour detention.
• In this SOHR source, it is claimed that a young Syrian was taken into Israeli territory, but it does not state that he was a civilian, he could have been a militant.

Therefore, your assertion that "Israel has taken civilians as prisoners" is inaccurate for two reasons:

1. The term "prisoner" does not appear in any of the sources you provided. Using it misleads readers into thinking that Israel abducted numerous civilians for an indefinite period, which is not the case.
2. The individuals Israel allegedly took into its territory are not confirmed to be civilians; some could have been militants.

Additionally, I agree with @Swatjester that many of your claims rely heavily on SOHR, a source whose reliability is disputed.

In conclusion, after analyzing all the sources you provided, there is insufficient justification to include any of the statements you proposed in the lead section. This is due to their marginal significance, their disputed nature, or the fact that the terminology you wish to use is incorrect and misleading. Rafi Chazon (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Lets focus on one thing at a time: WP:V. In each of the above, at least some cases of Israel harming civilians appear to be verifiable. A few comments:

• " one protester was wounded in the leg by Israeli fire, but it is unclear from the source whether he was a civilian or a militant." Protesters are civilians unless noted otherwise. If you really insisted, we could replace "Israeli soldiers have shot at civilians" with "Israeli soldiers have opened fired at protesters" or something similar.
• "states that the IDF killed a young man, but it is unclear from the source whether he was a civilian or a militant." Its implied by the source[12]: "Israeli forces also advanced close to civilian houses in Al-Hamidyah village in northern Al-Qunaitrah, 100 meters, after opening the area’s gate and conducting intensive fire-combing operations. Furthermore, Israeli forces shot dead a young man from Jabatha Al-Khashab town in northern Al-Qunaitrah countryside. Moreover, Israeli forces arrested all the residents of Rasm Al-Rawadi village and took them to the village school, causing widespread outrage among civilians."
• "the IDF wounded one person who, according to his own account, was gathering wood in the area." What does gathering wood have to do with being a civilian? The source is pretty clear that a civilian was targeted and wounded: "The Israeli army arrested a civilian and injured another by shooting at him."[13]
• " it explicitly states that the strike targeted Syrian military facilities, and the civilian casualties were unintended". Can you show me where the source[14] "explicitly" states that "civilian casualties were unintended"? I didn't find that.
• " even SOHR itself states that it is uncertain whether the strike in question was carried out by Israel" Again, the source[15] says the opposite: "Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said...it was “likely resulting from an Israeli attack.”
• "all the sources you cited use the terms "arrest" or "detained", which is fundamentally different from the term "prisoner" that you insist on using." The terminology used in our articles, is governed more by WP:NPOV and WP:WTA, than by WP:V. For example, several RS listed at WP:RSP (eg Amnesty, Al-Jazeera) say Israel is committing genocide as a matter of fact, but so far we need to still attribute those claims. Likewise, we don't say Hamas is terrorist in wikivoice, but rather attribute that. In this case, "detain" could be neutral, but "arrest" is not neutral, even if a RS uses it. The reason being that Israel's sovereignty is not recognized internationally over Syria, and hence it lacks the jurisdiction to arrest anyone. It may however take people as prisoners of war during an armed conflict.
  • As an example, other sources say that Israel has "abducted" Syrians[16][17]. What word we use should be decided more by neutrality concerns.
• The detention/imprisonments are not all temporary. "Jumhuriya.net said however that its journalists were still detained by Israel"[18] which implies a longer-term detention.

After we agree it is verifiable that Israel has shot at and killed civilians in Syria, and took them as prisoner, then we can determine whether to include it in the lead or not. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 22:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Rafi Chazon:

https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-834281 https://www.timesofisrael.com/one-said-hurt-after-idf-opens-fire-at-group-protesting-israeli-presence-in-south-syria/ Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Thepharoah17 (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Thepharoah17 for the references.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 01:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

@Vice regent Apologies for the delayed response.

At no point did I claim that Israel hasn’t harmed Syrian civilians. My criticism from the beginning has been that you're citing sources that do not explicitly say what you're implying, thereby misleading readers. A good example is the recent sources you provided, which you believe prove "that Israel has 'abducted' Syrians".[19][20] However, it takes only a moment to see that while these sources do mention that Israel took a Syrian civilian into its territory, the incident is unrelated to the events described in our article. The Syrian civilian was taken in September 2024, whereas the article deals with events that occurred starting in December 2024. This is a clear example of using sources that don’t actually support your claim, thereby misleading readers.

Another good example is your repeated assertion that this source definitively proves that Israel was responsible for the strike. I honestly don’t understand how you can overlook the fact that the term “likely” used in the source - or “believed,” as another source phrases it - clearly indicates that the event is not confirmed but rather a speculation that lacks conclusive evidence.

My second point was that none of the sources you provided use the term "prisoners," and therefore it’s inaccurate to include it in the article. Despite your explanation, I still fail to see how inventing terms not found in the sources can be justified. It seems inappropriate, and even misleading.

My third point was that while there are indeed sources stating that Israel harmed Syrian civilians, the significance of this is not substantial enough to warrant inclusion in the lead. Moreover, it's important to note that the infobox already includes information about the number of casualties, deaths, and "prisoners" (although I still disagree with the use of that term) since the start of the operation. Our discussion, however, was only about whether this information belongs in the lead section. I still don’t believe the scale of the event justifies its inclusion there - especially considering it's already mentioned in the infobox.

The sources brought by @Thepharoah17 further support my argument that the injured protester was not an innocent civilian but rather a perceived threat to IDF forces. Again, I’m not disputing the claim that Syrian civilians were harmed. My concern is with the wording, which seemed to suggest that Israeli soldiers were arbitrarily shooting innocent Syrian civilians.

I realize I’ve already gone on at length. If you'd like me to respond to the rest of your points, I’d be happy to do so, though I believe I’ve addressed the most essential parts. Rafi Chazon (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

How to list new casualties in the infobox

Israel recently carried out another round of widespread airstrikes, and SOHR claims at least 4 killed, though it hasn't differentiated between civilians and soldiers. It's likely the two killed in Daraa were soldiers given SOHR mentions the strikes targeted the 112th Division in Izra, and they mention tanks in the first paragraph while Daraa 24 released video of armor being moved in Izra on the 24th (at least one T-55 and one T-62). However, SOHR as a source itself doesn't confirm those killed in Daraa were soldiers. Should the high estimates for each just be updated for now? As in, 5 – 15 civilians killed/2 – 7 soldiers killed > 5 – 19 civilians killed/2 – 11 soldiers killed? Or should they be left untouched for now to see if more definitive sources come out? UncleBourbon (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

No opinion here, but just want to point out there's an active discussion about SOHR on the reliable sources noticeboard here and while it's not complete, the general alignment there seems to be that SOHR has some reliability concerns, and in general probably should not be the only source on something (and if it is, perhaps that's a good indication that the claim is not ripe for inclusion). So I'd suggest that "or should they be left untouched for now to see if more definitive sources come out" seems most inline with the consensus there (and presumably if/when there are additional sources, it would seem aligned w/ the RSN discussion that SOHR could be added as well to bolster them as it'd no longer be a sole source.) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I should also add that two of the four casualties were probably in Lebanon instead of Syria, as the strike occurred at the border and SOHR describes it as being "in Juroud Al-Naby opposite to Sarghaya Town in Rif Dimashq" (emphasis my own), placing it in Lebanon. UncleBourbon (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright, so it seems SOHR somewhat addressed the question. Their update on 10 Mar lists total fatalities for 2025 at 2 civilians and 4 military. Counting the fatalities from their previous reports, that means the 2 from 25 February were military per SOHR.. I'll also add in bold "Per SOHR," as a stopgap measure due to the contested nature of the source, allowing readers to decide the veracity themselves. To do so without visual clutter I've removed the flagicons from "Strength" and "Casualties," since these are often absent in other infoboxes anyway, and have made a footnote so as not to have 12+ references for one figure clogging up the infobox. UncleBourbon (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

I've also added SNHR sources for civilian casualties, as I've seen them regarded as more reliable than SOHR by some analysts. I plan to replace the later two citations when their report on civilian deaths for the month of March comes out. UncleBourbon (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Edit Request

Remove the "armed civilians" from the civilian section of the infobox. A person who is armed is not a civilian Fyukfy5 (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Both sources define those casualties as civilians, and it's written in bold that those casualties are per those sources. I'm no international lawyer, but your ICRC source doesn't seem to back your stance; we don't have any evidence yet that the residents of Koya village were an organized force, or under the command of anyone. The SNHR statement says that these were residents who used their personal firearms to defend against incursions by Israeli forces, rather than members of a militant organization. At best Rule 5 of the ICRC would suggest that those armed lose protection against attack due to participating in hostilities, although "such a civilian does not thereby become a combatant."

Due to the seemingly disputed nature of how to classify a civilian armed with a personal weapon defending themselves or their property in an international armed conflict, I don't see this as a WP:NPOV issue and thus there's no reason to change the words of the source uses. This particularly being the case when I'm unaware of any substitute word that would be applicable, given there's no confirmation of militancy to use "militant" and ICRC suggests "combatant" is likewise incorrect. Describing them as "armed" in the infobox should be enough to allow readers to draw their own conclusions. If others disagree then we can discuss this and try to reach WP:CON.

However, I notice that I included the wrong url for the SNHR statement as source of that incident. I apologize and have fixed this. UncleBourbon (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

It's definitely a tough situation to define but the ICRC source says "...a civilian who participates directly in hostilities loses protection against attack" and the SNHR source says "Clashes ensued between the Israeli occupation forces and local residents, who used personal firearms..." Which I think would count as participating in hostilities. Perhaps another section for "armed individuals"?

I'd also like to make clear I don't think this is a violation of NPOV, it's tough to define these things I just think we need to make the context clearer. Fyukfy5 (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if context is really an issue, since listing them as "(armed) civilians" has given you the context that they had likely lost their protection against attack. The WP:RS' list them as civilian casualties, and I don't think it's justified to change their overall classification if it isn't an WP:NPOV issue. Also, we don't know how many of the killed civilians were armed; SNHR says two were killed in the initial armed clash, causing the IDF to pull out and shell the village, which killed four more, wounding others including a woman. Given a woman was wounded and that "dozens of families" ended up evacuating to a neighboring village, it's questionable whether those four killed in the shelling were armed or not. As such describing them blanketly as armed already seems like enough of a measure in providing context, at least to me.

Honestly, I think it may be a good idea wait a few days until SNHR releases their monthly casualty report in early April. They said in their statement that their teams are still working to gather information on the victims, and it could effect the number of civilians they classify as having been killed by Israel in March. I added the two current sources for the killings in March mostly as a temporary measure until that report releases, after all.

I appreciate you acknowledging that it's a tough situation to define, by the way, and do agree. I just consider the way it's currently defined as the most acceptable out of the alternatives. UncleBourbon (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright I can accept that, I appreciate you taking the time to articulate your viewpoint Fyukfy5 (talk) 01:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

A civilian can be armed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:04, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Edit Request

In the lede it says "Israel's campaign in Syria was internationally condemned as an act of aggression and as a violation of international law." But the source says "drew international condemnation" and later says the the only international law violation allegation was by Saudi Arabia. The fact that Israel was internationally condemned in general (itself a very vague statement from the source) and the fact that it was accused by a single country of violating international law, does not mean that it was internationally condemned for violating international law.

Please change the paragraph accordingly. Perhaps something like "was internationally condemned and was accused of violating international law by Saudi Arabia's foreign ministry". Fyukfy5 (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done Lova Falk (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 3 April 2025

israeli casualties on the infobox should be updated to 11 killed 27 injured https://hawarnews.com/en/clashes-with-israeli-army-in-daraa-leave-casualties

 Not done Hawar news is not a reliable source, so the edit won't be made. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2025

Please change de facto leader to president as Ahmed al-Sharaa is now president of Syria. Thirurang Cherusskutty (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 20:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Change "Syria's de facto leader Ahmed al-Sharaa" to "Syria's president Ahmed al-Sharaa"

• −

  Syria's de facto leader Ahmed al-Sharaa

  +

  Syria's president Ahmed al-Sharaa

  :
• Al-Sharaa is Syria's official interim president now, he's no longer just the de facto leader.:
• Sources mentioning his appointing Sources mentioning him as president:

User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 22:48, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Hi User:Chorchapu. I will change into interim president, as many of your sources also say. Lova Falk (talk) 12:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

He is no longer the interim president. Major sources refer to him as the President of Syria or the Syrian President. Even state media states that he is the President of the Syrian Arab Republic. HurricaneEdgar 12:41, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2025

Reference 116 now 404s so I request the link is changed to the Archived version of the link Halikandry (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done - I've modified the citation and added the archive link. Thank you for helping out. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 3 May 2025

Description of suggested change: Typo at the lastest May 2 update regarding the bombing of the presidential palace.

Diff:

−

preseidential

+

presidential

2800:2130:8240:24CB:C04:117A:8ED:BB77 (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done UncleBourbon (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Inaccurate Map

Israel has taken way more territory than is shown on the map including the entirety of the buffer zone. Salvation Front (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Edit request 3 June 2025

Description of suggested change: Islamic Resistance Front has not been established by the SSNP and also is not part of it. Also the source linked to the inclusion of SSNP as a beligerent in this front mentions nothing about its militia fighting in this front.

Diff:

−

ORIGINAL_TEXT

+

CHANGED_TEXT

Xyz464 (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Skitash (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Xyz464 I did understand which changes you requested. SSNP was not in the source for this text, nor was it in our article on Islamic Resistance Front, so I have removed it. Lova Falk (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2025 (UTC)