Talk:List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Syrian civil war

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151123160453/http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/09/continued-clashes-and-aerial-bombardment-around-jazal-field/ to http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/09/continued-clashes-and-aerial-bombardment-around-jazal-field/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Use of Roundel of the Syrian Air force and others.

Please avoid the Excessive use of roundel and flags. Use numbers in () instead. Mr.User200 (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Please per WP:WORDPRECEDENCE dont spawn flags and Air force Roundels on the list bellow.
Mr.User200 (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160215141718/http://www.centcom.mil/en/news/articles/jordanian-pilot-not-downed-by-isil to http://www.centcom.mil/en/news/articles/jordanian-pilot-not-downed-by-isil

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources, etc

First, I'd suggest that a photo showing a bruised and battered pilot in captivity does NOT show evidence that he was "brawling" with his captors, but that he was beaten by a mob. I'm going ascribe this to a misunderstanding of the meaning of the word "brawl", otherwise it would be intentionally trying to make the Syrian rebels look better by placing the responsibility for the pilot's bruises on his own head. It is almost certain that the bruises are from a very one-sided "match" and the pilot is lucky he wasn't killed on the spot. Next, maybe the rules are different for a page like this, but it appears to me that a large proportion of the "sources" for this list are videos on Youtube and elsewhere on the web. Even if that doesn't count as "original research" (not sure how it wouldn't), the numerous places where it says things like "the video clearly shows it was actually a Russian Mi-35 helicopter with fixed/extended landing gear", citation: Youtube video, are very clearly original research. If I can't go onto an article and say "look, this is wrong, you can see right here in this photo that it's not that way" because that's "original research" and was never published, I don't see how do-it-yourself combat footage analysis is okay here.

Idumea47b (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

YES and I'm still waiting for @Mr.User200: why did he changed his own policy by removing videos, as he claimed himself video footage to prove a shot down. Videofootage are not useless the work as a information complent.

July 11th 2018, Syrian or Russian UAV?

Israeli sources claimed that the UAV shot down on July 11th was Syrian and fell close to the See of Galilee [1]. Other sources [2] reported it was a Russian Forpost and fell on [3] [4]; (Remains of a Russian #Forpost drone (licensed copy @ILAerospaceIAI #Searcher II) that was shot down by #Israel the day before, in a field near #Barqah, a few dozen kilometres from the Israeli-occupied #Golan Heights on July 12, 2018. #Syria; BUT: " [5]; [6]; [7]. So the accident involving the Russian UAV is different and not yet registered. --Nicola Romani (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Drones

The lede currently concludes with a self-contradictory statement that "The list below does not include drones, except selected specific entries.' - this is meaningless gibberish.

• If the intent is to not include drone incidents, we should say so explictly, and remove all listings of drones.
• If the indent is to include both manned and unmanned incidents, but we fill the list is incomplete with regard to drones, we should say that ("This is an incomplete list with regards to drone incidents")
• If the intent is to only include some notable drone incidents, we should be clear about what the criteria for inclusion is. Here come the Suns (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Over claiming.

Well, there are a lot of overclaiming by Syrian Air force of Turkish drones shot down and Turkish forces claims of Syrian helicopter craft destroyed. To keep the article clean and neutral, only reports of relaiable sources; backed with photos of the shot downs or videos will be acepted.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Twitter as a source.

This have been discuted a long ago. Twitter is not a primary or secundary source from anything. Using combatants Twitter claims are not a source, or using aligned Twitter claims from partisan Twitter accounts is not a RS.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yasir UAVs

I have spoken with several active and former Syrian Army members about the usage of Yasir drones in the Qalamoun area of Syria and Lebanon between the years of 2013 and 2014. They've told me that the Yasirs were used by members of Hezbollah, and that the crashed drones belong to them. However, there is obviously not a way to cite this. I believe that the drones should be marked as Hezbollah, since the area had a heavy presence of their fighters and the drones are in their inventory. If anyone has issue with this please let me know and we can talk about this more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WoofersSCW (talk • contribs) 23:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

First of all; sign your comments with the ~ ~ ~ ~ icon located at the botton part of this message box (Sign your posts on talk pages:). Now regarding that I see you use Lufwaffe blog, for me is a RS because is not Partisan and in the opening years of the war that page covered a lot of the things that happened in Syria. But unless you have a source (reliable btw) you cant add that. Just consider those Yasir UAVs as SAA UAVs; its the best thing to do. They dont have SAA markings but its obvious they are operated by pro goverment forces. Mr.User200 (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

My argument for Hezbollah being the owner of the drones is that the 2014 offensive saw them do the heavy lifting as can be seen in this article: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Qalamoun_offensive_(June%E2%80%93August_2014). Logically, it is their drones that crashed. Indeed, thousands of Hezbollah had been in the area. And the first drone that crashed crashed right when Hezbollah's involvement really ramped up here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Battle_of_Qalamoun_(2013%E2%80%9314). I believe at the very least that we should mention the possibility of these being Hezbollah drones. This article details the fact that Hezbollah was using armed drones in Qalamoun to target Jabhat al Nusra. https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/pubs/ResearchNote35-Pollak-2.pdf. I believe this is an ample source to prove that drones in this area belonged to Hezbollah, regardless of the fact that Yasirs are not armed.WoofersSCW (talk) 02:24, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

We have only listed state entities (and quasi-state entity ISIL) here. Since Hezbollah is not representing Lebanon here, I'd suggest we put roundel of Syria next to lost aircraft (because they fight on Syrian side as one of many groups and are under Syrian command), but mention in further description that it belongs to Hezbollah. That's just my suggestion. Илија Гуск (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I added Hezbollah Roundel for an only one Hezbollah drone which was directed against Israel, and it was not a Yasir UAV but an unkown drone. If it so complicated. We can remove Hezbollah roundel but we have to add a warning phrase for the reader to see that hezbollah are include into Syrian forces because we cannot dinstinguish between the two in the battlefield. And all will be solved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarimauFury (talk • contribs) 13:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Twitter and Youtube are not a RS by itself.

Per this we cant accept YT as a reliable source. I'm correcting the content of this article according to Wikipedia guiedlines. Any question contact a administrator. See WP:RSPYT. This have been deabted before and YT is not a source by itself for the type of claims being made here. Mr.User200 (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@HarimauFury, WoofersSCW, Axxxion, Илија Гуск, LakesideMiners, Dreamy Jazz, ST47, and Bbb23: Mr.User200 (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

To Mr.User200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarimauFury (talk • contribs) 13:33, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• 1) This is you who asked for video and photo evidences. Why you changed your own policy ? And remember that you thanked me for adding them.
• 2) Youtube are not used as a source here where mentionned but as a video footage complement. AS YOU ASKED YOURSELF !
• 3) The page you mentionned IS NOT AN OFFICIAL PAGE OF WIKI GUIDELINES. Look at the page "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community."

Watch your language first of all, YT is considered "generally unreliable", also the fact that videos photos are needed it does not means any video or photo out there is the needed to include those events. Another question HarimanFury, have you ever edited in Wikipedia before?? have you ever used others accounts before?? have you ever been blocked in the past for evasive IP or wrong languague to others editors?? Have you ever blocked for not aswering this questions to a admin??Mr.User200 (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Watch your language before with your threatenings, you think you are a policemen. My language is correct. Secondly, there "YT is considered "generally unreliable"" What does it mean "generaly" ? You accepted yourself video footage I gave from youtube by thanking the addition of it. YOU Asked for these footage, again answer WHY you are changeing your own policy ? Why did you change the policy ? And you gave guidelines from an no official page edited by random people. The video footage are useful and complete the article to prove the claim. Yes I'm not a new editor, my account is new, but I edited before without account. All your other police question are useless and no need to be answered. You are not a police officer, so watch your language. Mr.User200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarimauFury (talk • contribs) 15:51, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@HarimauFury: Stop reverting any other edit made by other editors. This is considered Disruptive editing, also use the guidelines of Wikipedia. Regarding reliable sources; Twitter and Youtube are not RS by themselves. Any unexplained revert will be considered Vandalism and Disruptive behaviour. Another question asnwer if you can or want. Was this your other account: 176.88.143.228 ?? Mr.User200 (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mr.User200: This is a true reverse accusation, this is YOU who revert regulary other edit made by other editors. True lies ! Instead of lies and giving false acccusations answer the questions I asked you Mr.User200. I didn't see you telling the same to Илија Гуск who made a massive vandalism in the page by reverting to a very old version removing many crashes (6000 caracters removed at once). And again watch yourself in a mirror !

@Mr.User200: Answer my questions please ! Here: here "YT is considered "generally unreliable"" What does it mean "generaly" ? You accepted yourself video footage I gave from youtube by thanking the addition of it. YOU Asked for these footage, again answer WHY you are changeing your own policy ? Why did you change the policy ?

@Mr.User200: "Also Twitter and Youtube are not RS" I never used twitter as source. And about youtube it is you who asked for photo/video evidences, and you thanked me for this one here [8]. So why you changed your policy ? Why you avoid answering and still false-accusing me using twitter as a source ?

Илија Гуск vandalism

Not only he came to destroy one entire week of working between many users, but also he came back outside his account with his own IP adress to be back to this very old version. In this version he removed some sourced and accepted shotdowns, and even 1+1 does not equals 2 anymore, since all the totals of syrian aircrafts, unknown aircraft, etc... are now mathematically incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarimauFury (talk • contribs) 13:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

@Илија Гуск: I have seen some changes from Илија Гуск, some are justified other not, for example all Turkish drones reported shot down have been removed. Also some Sources have been errased with the entries of aircraft lost and others not. And i dont agree with some of those edits. Care to discuss one by one all those reverts, we can solve it here once for all instead of errasing and reverting.Mr.User200 (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I would not make those mistakes if there wasn't a flood of edits made by that other user. I tried to separate good edits from the bad ones (by including edits of other users too, which is self evident). I also suggested more than once to talk here before adding bunch of stuff which were supported by dubious sources. As for the "vandalism part" my previous contributions to this page say otherwise. He speaks of "one entire week of working", ignoring what others have been compiling for months. Илија Гуск (talk) 18:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

My flood... as you say where only incremental corrections of many incoherent things such as FALSE dates, reverted dates, dead links sources, bad aircraft number addition, and adding some formatting [[]] and grammar change incrementally, I take one complete day to do a recounting of each aircraft downed, and each state. Do you have some problems with maths ? Are you serious ? All your changes is only reverting to an old and obsolete version on which 129+1 = 113, how could you be a little bit serious with this ? How ??? HarimauFury (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

For the sources there are not doubthfoul at all, I and Mr Woofer acted strictly to search for very accurate sources (and he is not my friend at all). And I and Mr Woofer gave also a video footage evidences for some one as AN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION and not as a strictly as reference SOURCE. These videos were claimed by Mr.User200 himself who changed his mind just few days after, and now he says YT is not a RS.HarimauFury (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Well this is true, you and other users have been updating this page from nay months ago.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

First, This page doesn't belong to him or anyone. Secondly, even if he was updating his page from months ago, there was still VERY BIG calculus errors, grammar errors, reverted dates, little confusions between two events... I corrected the existant incrementally ! no more ! AND I gave additionnal sources and references to prove some of the facts (not YT, I used YT footage as additionnal information). HarimauFury (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Youtube videos no more available.

1) Not a realiable Source.
2) Videos no available anymore.
3)Massive clean up needed. Mr.User200 (talk) 19:39, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

The amount of vandalism because of removed Youtube videos has made this list totally useless in it's current form as it is no longer accurate. What Mr.User200 has done by removing all incidents with Youtube links has killed the totals. Videos from OFFICIAL channels which were taken down because of mass-reporting in 2015. They were not some random accounts. I am giving up with this list because of moronic source puritanism specifically from the aforementioned user. WoofersSCW (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

You have been warned before about using Youtube and Twitter. There is nothing I can do about the behaviour of Banned User HauriauFury or yours.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Youtube videos have been used as sources here, from official groups and news organizations, for the entire existence of this article. If the videos are dead, you need to find an alternate source or label it as "source needed". You have erased events and ruined this list along with our friend Илија Гуск.WoofersSCW (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Relax... friend... I don't remember erasing entire dates of aircraft destruction. I do remember once, before this commotion, erasing dead link, but leaving information about destroyed aircraft intact. I do believe unsourced aircraft should not be removed and that we should try to find somewhat reliable sources before deleting them. Илија Гуск (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

The list is mathematically incorrect specifically because of your actions. We need to revert to my last edit (about the Russian Orlan-10) and then fix grammar issues. Even doing ctrl+f I can see mathematic inconsistencies. If you chose not to do this that's fine. But know that this article is a mess specifically because of the actions of both of you.

This list is not your personal blog, or your favorite shotdown almanac. The fact that the article is not what you want/wish does not means is a disaster. For Wikipedia guidelines and in my own opinion the article is much more better that the disaster and ridicolous article you and the Blocked Vandal left last week. All entries sourced and with the correct sourcing.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

The allegation that I am suggesting anything of the sort is nothing short of brain dead. There are dozens of shoot downs that are not present because of the actions of you and others. The so-called "vandal" was reversing efforts by you and @Илија Гуск to remove dozens of instances of drone and helicopter shoot downs. How is this article better when there are dozens of shoot downs that are removed? The numerous entries that were removed had solid sources but were removed because Илија Гуск didn't like them for some reason. This is unacceptable. You and him have ruined this article. The totals are incorrect. And there are months of gaps in coverage. If you will not revert, please at least put a disclaimer that this list is not to be taken as a complete total of shoot downs, as there are many missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WoofersSCW (talk • contribs) 18:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree, Mr.User200 has been removing a lot of sourced content just several hours ago on another page as well (see Operation Spring Shield). He is only adding pro-SAA claims and then acuses anyone who adds an Turkish claim (as per MoD) as ‘’propaganda’’ or just removes content without any reason. I’m glad to see that other users have noticed this from him as well. What he is doing is just making edits whatever he wants and then remove content from others Maskalaeuba (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Harimanfury. Hope this time you stop your reverts and unconstructive behaviour. If not you will be blocked again and again.Mr.User200 (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Su-24 fix it

1 Russian Su-24 shot down by Turkey http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/2015_Russian_Sukhoi_Su-24_shootdown

1 Russian Su-24 crash (no combat lost) https://www.rt.com/news/406201-su24-crash-syria-killed/

1 Syrian Su-24 shot down by Israel 2014 https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-shoots-down-syrian-fighter-plane-over-golan/

1 Syrian Su-24 shot down by Rebels https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/201803181062666982-syrian-army-aicraft-shot-down/

2 Su-24 shot down by Turkey 2020 https://theaviationist.com/2020/03/01/two-syrian-su-24-fencer-jets-and-a-turkish-drone-shot-down-over-idlib-region-syria/

Total Syrians = 4 Total Russians = 1 (Combat) 1 (Non combat)

Total document Su-24 losses = 6

Why article said 10 ?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.198.49.96 (talk) 01:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

The artcle says 10 because there are 10 Su 24 shot down. Including those listed by you.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2020

{{subst:trim|1=

I counted the Syrian Air Force losses and they add up to 127, not 114.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 00:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Totals = personal assumptions by Mr.user2000

The "totals" section is just personal work by Mr.user2000 point of view. He just decided what happened in most of the actions which are disputed themselves most of the times, each side reported a different story. This article should just report each single occurrence with all the versions and an eventual description of video evidence if available. As it has little-to-nil encyclopedic value, it should be removed.

Instead of accusing others of personal Research, why you don't use a calculator and do the math to check the numbers displayed in the table. The current table is made from the content of the article. Also you have been warned several times about your disruptive behaviour. Avoid risking a block.Mr.User200 (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

why did you remove this entry?

the source is theaviationist.com

• 4 September 2012 – Another MiG-21 was shot down and recorded on video. It was likely downed on takeoff or landing at Abu Dhuhur air base, under siege by rebels, by KPV 14.5mm machine gun fire.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This eight-and-a-half-year-old source was a preliminary description of a YouTube video. Over the succeeding interval there should be other sources to confirm this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Waiting for a RS to add again.

• 7 February 2021 – Another Orlan-10 drone crashed or was shot down over Idlib governorate.
  Hope a RS reports the same fact to add to the list again.

Can someone add the Russian Mi-35 helicopter crash

A Russian Mi-35 helicopter crashed northwest of Tel Tamr killing the pilot.. I can't add it because of extended protection.--2602:306:CD20:9B70:95EC:A734:EBF1:2862 (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

. Done Done, but no casualties were reported.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Small drones.

Hello regarding the Turkish drone lost on April 2021 I removed the part since we are talking about a small drone. Smaller than a normal Commercial drone, we should consider War weary material or "non-civilian commercial" drone. A Quadcopter with some hand grenades attached dont deserve even mention.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Small drones.

• 15 February 2022 - A Syrian Airforce MiG-23UB fighter jet two-seat trainer aircraft crashed as a result of mechanical failure near Sha'irat airbase in the eastern countryside of Homs. Both pilots were killed in the crash.

The problem with this entry is that the only Internet source I have found is Southfront and that page is blacklisted because is not a RS. If someone have another source (Reliable BTW) please reinstate.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)