Talk:Israeli invasion of Syria (2024–present)

Alternate name

Any objections to "2024 Israeli incursion into southwest Syria"? cc @Chaotic Enby🧺🧺 @Boud📚📚 @Ok123l📘📘 @CapLiber📘📘 @SolxrgashiUnited🐣🐣. I think "invasion of Syria" is extremely confusing as a title—it makes it sound like they're invading the whole country with a large force. – Closed Limelike Curves📘📘 (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. "Incursion" sounds like a euphemism. We're talking about invading another sovereign state, which we call "invasion" as the factual term (e.g. Russian invasion of Ukraine rather than "Special military operation", and more recently 2024 Israeli invasion of Lebanon). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for an alternate name? The problem is that invasion isn't quite accurate, because an invasion refers to a large-scale military operation. "Incursion" isn't meant to be a euphemism—see e.g. 2023 Belgorod Oblast incursions, 2008 Turkish incursion into northern Iraq, or 1991 Zeila incursion. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

That is a good point, and seeing the other examples I understand your point of view. As the fog of war is there and the situation is still developing, I think both could make sense but that it is best to wait a few days to see where this is going. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The situation is developing, but WP:CRYSTAL BALL prohibits us from titling based on speculation—right now all we know is there's been some small-scale deployment. If the conflict escalates, we can change the title back. (I'm skeptical, but who knows.) – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The question is whether Israel has the aim to grab a land or temporarily occupy the land. Beshogur (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Then the article definitely needs to be retitled, per WP:CRYSTALBALL—we can't imply we know anything about what Israel is going to do. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Wait My impression is that there's currently no WP:COMMONNAME in the English-language press (the Israeli English-language press cannot be expected to be neutral for this topic), with Al Jazeera English calling it a land grab, territory 'seizure', or a buffer grab per Netanyahu, or a takeover (none of which are either incursion or invasion). I don't see much English-language mainstream media coverage - and obviously this will be a sensitive question for newspaper editors in how to frame the events. If we had some expert sources (not vague "analysts", but political scientists with real expertise) predicting that the invasion would be limited to a small band near the Golan Heights, then "incursion" might become justified based on that. I would tend to wait to see either if a WP:COMMONNAME emerges, or if it becomes clear that the invasion is limited enough to be descriptively called an incursion. Boud (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

More generally, I don't think "Call something an invasion until we have proof that it's not an invasion" is how Wikipedia works. The burden of proof lies on editors claiming that Israel is conducting an "invasion". – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

See below—looks like sources have settled on either "deployment" or "incursion".– Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Presumptively oppose The air attacks are not confined to southwest Syria. However, air campaigns-only normally don't change governments or lead to territorial changes so would not oppose a move from "invasion" to "incursion" provided there were no territorial changes (whether annexation or indefinite occupation). The fact that Israel is reporting rejecting the 1974 border agreement creates a presumption in my view that we will see territorial changes and that such changes are a motivation for the military initiative taken. This presumption would be rebutted by a full Israeli withdrawal within the next few weeks. I don't believe either "the whole country" or large scale is an appropriate standard for invasion or not: a small invasion or regional invasion is still an invasion.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Support.Calling it an invasion is malicious, not neutral and devoid of NPOV. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Wait as per Boud until sources settle on something. Cortador (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Support.I agree with you. Its not an invasion! SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Support Israel is staying on the golan hights as it is strategically stupid to go any further. They from the start said they are temporarily guarding the Golan hights after rebel forces attacked the UN buffer zone around the time the Assad regime fell. Israel is securing its borders until the chaos in Syria calms down rather than invading Syria to cause more chaos. Hinga toka (talk) 10:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Support - RS report that this is a limited incursion into the DMZ, not a general invasion. Israel already "invaded Syria" in 1967 to occupy the Golan, so specifying the location as Quneitra would also be apt. PrimaPrime (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment—I've found RSes describing it. FT has described it as an "incursion", as does the Economist. US sources seem to avoid this term, since it's a bit charged; it seems like the most common term is "Deployment", or simply describing it as troops "Entering" the region: CNN calls it a "deployment". NYT also calls it a "deployment". That said, these feel a bit euphemistic to me. Other terms: BBC reports that Israel "seized control" of locations along the border. WSJ reports that Israeli troops "occupied a buffer zone" and describe it as a preemptive step to avoid any spilling over into the Israeli-occupied Golan. I can't find any examples of RSes calling it an "invasion", and this term seems to originate from a tweet. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

c.c. @Chaotic Enby, @Boud, and @Cortador. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Israeli leaders have explicitly said they wanted to take more than only the demilitarized zone, with defense minister Israel Katz stating that one of the objectives was [t]o establish a security zone extending beyond the buffer zone. At this point, calling it incursion or deployment is extremely euphemistic. Al Jazeera calls it a "seizure" of land, and AP News also does. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Israeli leaders have explicitly said they wanted to take more than only the demilitarized zone—agreed, I'm not disputing that.

Al Jazeera calls it a "seizure" of land, and AP News also does—no objections to saying that Israel "seized territory in Syria", like these sources do, but I'm having trouble working that into a title (something about "2024 Israeli seizures" just doesn't seem right to me :p).

The main problem here is the word "invasion" is incorrect—an invasion is a large-scale operation—and is likely to mislead readers (it certainly misled me when I first read it!). Calling it that when any RSes haven't violates both NOR and NPOV, because "invasion" has a very strong negative connotation of unprovoked aggression. Rebutting the presumption against calling something an "invasion" requires extraordinary sourcing and a very strong justification (e.g. common name and overwhelming consensus among RSes).

I'm also increasingly concerned about this article's abuse by people with less-than-savory motives or regard for the truth, e.g. claims on Twitter that Israel is planning to attack Damascus or that Assad only fell because "the Israelis did it". – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "invasion" is not ideal given the current size of the operation, although "incursion" or especially "deployment" still carry a euphemistic tone. Personally, I think "offensive" (on the model of 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria) would be a good compromise. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 05:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Support Turkey has taken large chunks of Syria to create its own buffer zone yet it is not referred to as an Invasion. if Turkey controlling a chunk of Syria much larger than the entire Golan heights than there is no reason to call what Israel is doing an invasion other than to inject politics into the article. Hinga toka (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The Turkish one is called 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. Agree that "offensive" would work as an alternate wording, although I would also be tempted to call the Turkish one "invasion". Also, you have already !voted twice, please do not cast duplicate bolded votes. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

If so than the name should be Offensive rather than Invasion, that would be more far more consistent. Hinga toka (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

"Offensive" is a huge improvement on "invasion". To me it still feels like it conveys too large of a scale (push along a whole front, rather than a few border actions). – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Support as the current title is an example of WP:CRYSTALBALL. - Amigao (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

How? its not a speculation about the future but an ongoing invasion reported by RS.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Because no RS has described it as an invasion. The main justification that's been offered above for the term is that it might become an invasion, or a reliable source might call it an invasion at some point in the future. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment— Just as a suggestion for feedback/comparisons to other alternative names mentioned in this topic, a possible alternative name that might better capture the scope of the article in both the ongoing ground offensive in southern Syria and the widespread airstrikes across multiple Syrian governorates could be something along the lines of "2024 Israeli military operations in Syria", akin to the title of the Turkish military operation in Idlib Governorate article. It might be more inclusive of the nature of current airstrike operations and objectives outlined by Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz per 2024 Israeli invasion of Syria#Israeli plan versus "invasion" or "offensive" alone. Noble Attempt (talk) 03:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

"Military operations" sounds too close to a certain Russian euphemism, and I'm surprised the article you link is titled like that rather than, well, "offensive". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 05:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

"Special (military) operations" is only a euphemism when used to describe a large-scale invasion (because "special operations" almost always refers to small-scale operations). If you call small-to-medium military operation an invasion it's a dysphemism.

I can confirm that RSes are using "military operations" in some cases. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Apparently the IDF have denied some of the reports cited here, which seem to be from less-than-ideal sources (e.g. Saudi state TV, although I can't tell precisely how accurate Al Arabiyah is). The AP is also apparently going out of its way to clarify the operation is not an invasion. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Reactions

Surely there are sources about SYRIA'S reactions to this event, right? 675930s (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

There's a social media claim - which is not a WP:RS - that The new Syrian government filed a formal complaint to the UN Security Council regarding Israel's violation of Syrian sovereignty and the 1974 Separation of Forces Agreement. If the claim is correct, then there should be official online documents available soon, and there should be WP:RS media stating that (despite the expected bias of western mainstream media in favour of The White Man's Burden to invade and bomb Syria on behalf of Syrians). Feel free to add sources here if you find them and don't currently have editing rights. Boud (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't have EP editing rights, so I would like this information added under Syria in the Involved Parties section please:

Syria's UN ambassador Qusay al-Dahhak called on the UN Security Council to compel Israel to immediately cease its attacks and withdraw to the Purple Line (ceasefire line). (source: https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-war-syria-news-13-december-2024-7791d1df688602e790639ed6c2bb0eba) Syrian de facto leader Ahmed al-Sharaa criticized Israel's actions, saying they cannot justify their recent actions in Syria, but also stating that his country was not in a position to be drawn into a new conflict. (source already exists in article: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/12/15/israel-intensifies-syria-attacks-but-hts-leader-says-doesnt-want-conflict) 675930s (talk) 12:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

UNDOF

In the UNDOF article, there is a mention of UNDOF exchanging fire with unknown assailants. In addition, there is a France24 report stating that the Israeli military is assisting UNDOF. Based on these, it does seem like UNDOF should be mentioned in the infobox. As for its placement, I'm thinking of a third column, similar to how UNIFIL is placed in the Israeli invasion of Lebanon's infobox. Please share your thoughts on this. JasonMacker (talk) 01:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

This was originally discussed a week ago. We do not typically list peacekeepers as belligerents, and the Lebanon article is an anomaly. (For a while, some users even insisted on keeping UNIFIL in the same column as Hezbollah...) The peacekeepers are not there to fight, and only shoot back if directly attacked. For UNDOF, this was a single incident. If we list UNDOF in a third column, it'll read like a third warring party, which is misleading. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree for now. UNDOF has done very little, and is not being directly targeted by either side, except for that one random raid on them by unknowns. JasonMacker (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Are you sure only civilians died?

If Syrian military losses are unknown, write "Unknown military losses".

If these "6" civilians killed (the reference says it was December 8 only) is an outdated and/or incomplete figure, write "At least 6" too. 94.246.147.217 (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually even the infobox itself (text hidden in the note c) says "However, Israeli airstrikes targeting SAA facilities have killed opposition personnel that had moved into the facilities following the collapse of the Ba'athist government" and I presume it's not what the infobox later says were "civilians" and there have been military losses indeed. – Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.246.147.217 (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

It still hasn't been fixed half day later. – Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.246.147.217 (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Two comments

Dear Editors, Since the article is closed to outside editors, I will make two comments here. A. The Israeli name 'Hats Bashan' is not a casual code name, but is based on the historical name of the area (search Bashan on the English Wikipedia). on. In the last paragraph there is a quote from a professor interviewed by Al Jazeera that the Golan Heights is a buffer zone, and now Israel has added a buffer zone to the buffer zone. I have never heard of such an agreement between Israel and Syria that the Golan Heights would be a buffer zone. Is there a source for this? המבין (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The buffer zone was created in the 1974 cease-fire [1]. Though you've correctly noted that Pinfold is misrepresenting the purpose of the buffer zone to imply a "where will it end" creeping advancement concern, without accounting for the fact that it's the elevated positioning of the Golan Heights that makes them a valuable buffer zone for protecting Israel from attacks, which is not applicable to land further beyond that point, from which it is difficult to directly fire and spot for artillery into Israel proper. Yet another reason the Pinfold quote should be removed, and pending any further objection (see section above) I will be removing it tomorrow. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 23:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

המבין personal opinion is not a valid reason to remove the quote. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Personal opinion isn't a valid reason to include a quote either, and the WP:ONUS for gaining consensus on inclusion is on the person seeking to include the information; however it's a non-issue at this point (other than that it would be better if it was in-line higher up in the article rather than at the end) because we've already addressed the formatting and structural issues that made the quote problematic. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I object to the quote's removal - we don't remove RS from experts just because we disagree with their analysis. Since it's factually accurate (that the buffer zone exists), it's relevant to include an expert's opinion on the nature of the zone. Smallangryplanet (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not disagreement about analysis about the nature of the zone, it's an objection to placing speculation about Israel's future actions from an excerpted interview from a biased media source on the same level as state-actor reactions (combined with the fact that the quote has not generated discussion about itself in other RS). Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. But if you don't want to remove the quote itself, then suggest a better place for it in-line so we don't have to give it undue weight and balance by giving it its own subsection .⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

We don't place it on the level with state-actor reactions, it's quite literally in a separate section. And sure, I'll go ahead and add some additional analysis, but RS seem fairly well aligned in the same direction as the existing quote, so I think it'll be a stretch to find usable sources that disagree. Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That must have been a recent change I missed, moving it from a subsection to its own section. The additions helps quite a bit actually, though there's still the issue that "Analysis" was never really an accurate header when it was just Pinfold, and the additions didn't really change that -- random unnamed residents commenting that the future is uncertain doesn't really fit that bill for "analysis". I'll see if I can find some harder military analysis about Israel's operations and objectives that would fit here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Swatjester@Smallangryplanet Thank you for handling my comments. המבין (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

fake info, contradiction to the source

in the table "6 Syrian civilians killed A number of Syrian civilians taken prisoner". The links to syriahr (11, 12) give another info: (11) "Israeli forces shot dead a young man from Jabatha Al-Khashab town in northern Al-Qunaitrah countryside." so: one person, not 6. (12) "On November 25, SOHR sources reported that a person called "Ghoro" accused of "working for the Fourth Division" led by "Mahir Al-Assad" was assassinated by unidentified people who shot him on the road between Jabata Al-Khashab and Khan Arnabah in Al-Qunaitrah" : so no civilian, but working for the Fourth Division and Assad's man. Not by Israeli, but by unidentified people.

So to conclude, the sources do not support the information from the table. They even contradict it. 192.114.1.65 (talk) 10:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Should the SSNP be included as a belligerent?

They have announced the creation of a front to liberate southern Syria, and they have also lost 4 fighters in battle with Israel recently. Glasnoreddreaminwater (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Source? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Add additional reactions

Russia and Germany should be added to the listed reactions 2A00:23C5:1F43:1C01:B973:185F:9906:4F70 (talk) 15:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 19 December 2024

2024 Israeli invasion of Syria → 2024 Israeli incursions into Syria – 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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:[2]--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)

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)

I don't have a dog in this fight. To the extent I do, I'm skeptical that Israel's actions here are actually necessary for their security, and Israel has flagrantly violated international law on countless occasions. 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)

"controlled by Syria"

Syria does not currently have a centralized government so it's nonsensical to refer to an area as "controlled by Syria." Instead the map should refer to that area as "controlled by [whatever militia controls that area next to the Golan]." Shaked13 (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

See Syrian transitional government. Boud (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

According to the Article on the Syrian Civil War, part of that area is controlled by the Southern Operations Room (which is not part of the Syrian Transitional Government) and part of that area is controlled by no one, so the article on Syrian Transitional Government is not relevant. Shaked13 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Based on the current state of Southern Operations Room, it does look "controlled by Syria" is misleading: the state of the state of Syria is unclear, per the sources, and quite likely fuzzy right now. Any objections to "controlled by Syrian groups"? The map for this article is not the place to try to sort out the degree of coordination between HTS and other various groups of the Syrian revolution. There are no sources showing any Syrian groups favouring the Israeli further invasion (beyond the Golan Heights) and bombing of Syria, as far as I can see. Boud (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree "Controlled by Syrian groups" makes sense Shaked13 (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done Boud (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

thank you

To be fair (and I understand this is a more difficult edit to make) the map image should also be updated so that the legend refers to the green area as "under control of Syrian groups," rather than "Syrian Transitional Government." (For the same reasons as above.) Shaked13 (talk) 04:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

True. The place for proposing that would be Commons:File talk:2024 Israeli invasion of Syria.png, possibly with a ping to the current uploader or the Commons equivalent of WP:BEBOLD. Boud (talk) 07:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)