Template:Pbneutral Template:Not a forum

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Syria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Arab world This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Sociology: Social Movements This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Are we sure this is true? The source given for this statement is just one and looks awfully like a propaganda site for the Syrian government: the dit in question "Islamic rule over Syria" and the source given. Also the edit summary "the claim is confirmed as the were going to announce the Islamic state on 25.04.2011 in Daraa" - without a WP:RS I do not believe for a moment that this was really going to happen! And funnily it sounds like Gaddafi and his "Islamic Emirate" in Darnah. Anyway - without more reliable sources I believe that this claim of "Islamic rule over Syria" must not be added to the article. noclador (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more sources for sure, but it is no secret that there is a very strong Salafist element in the uprising, if not the main element. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salafist element is one thing - a declared goal by the protesters to have Islamic rule over Syria is something else; especially as there is no such thing as an Islamic rule! noclador (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sharia is Islamic rule. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every single Muslim on Earth, all 1 billion of them, practices Shariah daily. It exists all over the West, do not confuse the Draconian laws of some Muslim-majority countries, with Shariah. --Smart30 (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is the first time I hear this. I would like to see some WP:RS. Tonemgub2010 (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question has re-add this stuff[1], with two new sources, which take the Salafist line from Syrian State officials: "State television in Damascus, quoting a government source" "a spokesman for the Syrian Interior Ministry, speaking on local television"; therefore in my view this even more underlines that the Islamic rule claim is nothing but government propaganda. noclador (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal view is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the view isn't espoused by protest organizers directly, I don't think it should be included in the infobox. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the only place you shall find that claim is in government propaganda. Whether or not, there is a "strong salafist movement" in the uprising, is something no one can say for sure and be honest. So you'd be hard pressed to find an RS that states that. If there is, then the protest organizers are doing a hell of a job not talking about it. All statements coming from the Local Coordination Committees (the ones who are coordinating the protests on the ground) vehemently denies such. Yazan (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of numerous refugees is not yet related in the article. The numbers are in their thousands and possibly rising towards 5 digit numbers - fleeing to Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. There are also many displaced as well. Hundreds of women and children have recently fled to Lebanon according [2] and [3]. Hundreds had fled Syria by May 03rd, heading for Turkey [4]. This is a possible humanitarian crisis in the making - Turkey is already worried on this issue - [5].Greyshark09 (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More refugees flee to Turkey in early June - some 2,500, according to Turkish officials, by June 09th. See here - [6].Greyshark09 (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2,700 refugees fled to Turkey per CNN - [7].Greyshark09 (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're able, I think you should go ahead and add these to the article. It's clear you've been working to educate yourself and keep yourself up to date on this important issue and I believe you would consequently be the best person to add this information to the page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. We might need to split it into a separate page if the problem keeps evolving.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why does the article say that civilians are being killed? maybe some but it is mostly armed groups and there is proofs and facts of this and not made up stories by the US and others. is wikipedia owned by Zionists or not? it looks like it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.107.229 (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your perspective. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting genocide. --Smart (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting unverified propaganda. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article should support what the WP:RS says.--Shrike (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is a classical case of "right for the wrong reasons". The article says civilians, but perhaps there are elements which could be more accurately be described as clan or sectarian and who should not be grouped together with the civilian protesters. We should be careful not to make that mistake, even if it hasn't happened yet. Also Kudzu1, Smart30 & FunkMonk should do everyone a favor and not act like this is a forum. In other words if your not explaining why it should be civilians, why he is wrong or what the wikipedia rules say it is you'd best keep your remarks to yourself even if you are right.--Tomvasseur (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would bet a great deal of money that Kudzu1 is a paid shill of the regime. At the very least he's a morally disgusting human being. He's spewing the propaganda of a mass murdering regime and one which, just today, killed another child. Smart30 has it right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.95.193 (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting the forumcides. 190.51.160.54 (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some information on how this uprising differs from the Egyptian revolultion, in that it has also involved vandalism and attackson security forces by armed elements. I also added some information on how the numbers of those protesting compares with Egypt. I did this using an article published in The Irish Times.

These additions were reverted here and in a prior edit by another editor. I believe this information should be included. Can we discuss ways it can be included and where? Tiamut^talk 19:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We also need to include information on the makeup of the protestors. This article [8] indicates that "Analysts point out the regime continues to enjoy the support of three major demographic segments — the Christians, who form around 10 per cent of the population; the Druze community; and the Allawites, the President's kinsmen who pack the Army's officer corps." It also mentioned by many RS that no major protests against the government have been held in the two largest cities: Damascus and Aleppo. None of these facts is currently reflected in this article. Shall we make a new section on "Involvement in protests"? Tiamut^talk 20:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting unverified propaganda.190.51.160.54 (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its all unverified propaganda, and you are welcome. Tiamut^talk 18:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That last isn't accurate at all. There have been protests in many, many districts of Damascus, as well as in Aleppo (particularly at Aleppo University). -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source was referring to the Friday before last and wrote : "However, no major protests were held in the two largest cities — Damascus and Aleppo, Syria's commercial capital. " I've seen the same description made generally elsewhere.

"But despite it all, the central squares of Aleppo and Damascus have been the site of large rallies in support of the beleaguered president. If those pro-government demonstrations subside, and begin to be replaced by opposition marches, analysts said it would likely signal a tipping point for the regime’s grip on power."

"Central neighbourhoods in Aleppo have been largely quiet, with a heavy security presence and the political and business alliance intact between Aleppan Sunni business families and the ruling hierarchy, from Syria's minority Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam."

Note the last source also mentions the protests at Aleppo University where there were about a dozen arrests. I guess they are not considered major protests? I've been to demonstrations in North America where hundreds were arrested - one with a dozen arrests barely made the news. Tiamut^talk 18:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANd Kudzu, would you mind commenting of the content of the edits I made and where or whether it might be worth including here? DO you think its right to compare this uprising to the one in Egypt and claim the protestors are wholly non-violent when multiple RS say otherwise? Tiamut^talk 18:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No make a subsection for comparisons, like the subsection made for Shabbiha. Comparisons don't belong in the lead. Zenithfel (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Zenithfel. And that subsection already exists. As I've said before, it's difficult to verify exactly what is going on. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the links [134][135][136][137][138] do not prove any armed elements in Syria but just adopt the State TV Story... this may give the government forces justification to kill more if the State tv was correct why the prevent international media to move freely in the country pleas review the paragraph "Armed elements"

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.178.236.56 (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing happening in Syria now has been "proven", nothing can be confirmed. Army defections? Sure, we can mention it because it has been reported, but there is absolutely no proof, or of rape for that matter. Even American officials have acknowledged the existence of the armed elements. Only deniers are the same people who are actually sponsoring them, such as Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood. FunkMonk

Well, Syrian defectors have crossed into Turkey and (I believe) Lebanon and have spoken with press. I don't know if their credentials were definitively confirmed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Watch is portrayed in this article as the supreme moral arbiter of all humanity. Yet this is just a lobby group, an influential one yes, but a lobby group with political motivations all the same. It is also led by Kenneth Roth, who is an American Jew. Since the Syrian government is known to have sometimes contentious relations with both the governments of the United States and Israel (supported by most Jews) it would seem that there is a conflict of interest here, putting this group forward as judge and jury of the world, especially as who leads Human Rights Watch is obscured and if people try to add it to the article, its reverted. Sword of St. Michael (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Watch is a large, highly-respected organization. The ethnicity or religious preference of its founder is irrelevant. By noting his religious preference in the article, you are adding a tacit claim that the organization's opinion is biased or cannot be trusted. That is original research and it does not present a neutral point of view. GabrielF (talk) 14:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Highly-respect according by whom? I presume the Syrian government do not respect it. Seems like implicit cultural imperialism. Roth is an American Jew, he leads this organisation; it says so much on the article about him on Wikipedia. To simply qualify or put a human face on where the statement about the Syrian government are coming from in this article about a controversial affair, cannot be POV. Stating the bare facts without a "this is good", or "this is bad", is fair. It should either be qualified with Roth's human face or removed entirely as contentious. Sword of St. Michael (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it all balances out, because Roth is a man and men comprise virtually the entire Syrian Army. If he were an American Jewish woman, that might be a problem. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Roth, if he is indeed Jewish (that has not been proven) is still an anti-Zionist/anti-Israel. He's been criticized by many Israeli news sources for this very reason. He isn't biased. And as for Israel being supported by "most Jews", I happen to take great offense to that absurd notion. --Smart (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point is moot. The user has been permanently blocked for creating an account to avoid a previous block. There's no use wasting time on this, or any of his other absurd edits. GabrielF (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. When will bigots learn that their BS isn't welcome on Wikipedia? -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 15 March. Protests started in January. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All international news media cite 15 March as the start date. EkoGraf (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• On July 29, more than 20 civilians were shot dead by Syrian forces during anti-government demonstrations in the cities of Latakia, Hama, Homs, Deraa, Kiswa, Deir Al-Zor, and the capital, Damascus. [[9]].

--86.16.14.224 (talk) 16:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Lebanon: Protest Against Syrian Regime Attacked by Loyalists -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syria unrest: 'Deadly military attack' on Latakia port Someone might want to add this. I would myself, but I'm not really sure where to put it in the article. In any case, the Syrian Navy is apparently shelling towns near the coast to suppress protesters/opposition. BBC reports at least 19 dead. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been added to the timeline article. A page for the August siege of Latakia might not go amiss, either. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Iran I understand, but you're bringing Lebanese and Iraqi militias into this as well? I'm trying to understand where does your source come from. Wouldn't surprise me if they are true as it's not illogical for the regime to bring allied mercenaries and militants, but it still requires verification. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Where does Hezbollah come in? Even one source for the "Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution" is not enough. These should be removed from the supporting forces along with the Mahdi Army. The support of Shabeeha is the only well documented source. Useless propaganda is not needed on Wikipedia too, we hear enough of it on the news.206.188.79.137 (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Slogan 15-3 Syria.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:Torture in Syrian prisons.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian unrest: Top Hama legal official 'saw executions' - The BBC is reporting a Syrian gov't official in Hama resigned over the crackdown in Syria. I don't know how important this is, or where it should be added to the article, but here's the link.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this mentions specific numbers of deaths among the protesters too, so that should be added--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this before above, but our article still fails to reflect his basic fact. The uprising in Syria has not reached the two largest cities, Damascus and Aleppo. See Life in Syria’s Capital Remains Barely Touched by Rebellion in the New York Times from September 6th. We need to change the information in our article to be in line with this analysis which is accepted even by opposition activists. Tiamut^talk 08:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am disagree about causes of uprising,causes of uprising areequal rights for Syria's ethnic and religious groups, and broad political freedoms, such as freedom of press, speech and assembly.Dictatorship is not correct.Anderson john (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct, because they are opposed to the current presidential system (elections with only Assad allowed to run) otherwise known as dictatorship. Sopher99 (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]