Template:Not a forum

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following 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 High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East B‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history B This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force

Michel Samaha, Lebanon's former information minister, was arrested for attempting to bomb the Future Bloc of the Lebanese Parliament to create a sectarian rift, on orders from Bashar Assad and Ali Mamluk. Evidence of this is caught on video where he is seen handling bombs and saying "This is what assad wants" to Mamluk. Samaha has confessed to planning these attacks for Assad. One should keep in mind that the Current Lebanese government was pro-assad, so they are not kidding around here.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0810/Former-Lebanese-minister-arrested-for-planning-attacks-for-Syria-s-Assad Sopher99 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs in the international section, or the sectarian section. Sopher99 (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fishy story, he was arrested by the same Hariri owned intelligence branch which wrongly arrested the "four generals" for the Hariri bombing. Now they say an MP personally drove around with explosives in his car planting bombs? Sure. Let's wait and see where the story goes before jumping on the band-wagon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't belong in the Syrian civil war article, let alone in the lead. Syria-Lebanon relations are complex (Syria having occupied the country for three decades) and aren't limited to this uprising. As far as I can see, there are no indications that Michel Samaha's alleged crimes and his arrest are linked to the uprising. The news of Samaha's arrest belongs in an article such as Lebanon–Syria relations rather than here. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a September update, Lebanon has found that this directly involves Assad, and Samaha was convicted in a court. Sopher99 (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still, this doesn't make this connected to the Syrian uprising. Not everything involving Assad has to do with this uprising, you know. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is a non-stopping edit-warring in the infobox section, i suggest to make a poll whether to include in the infobox a section on countries which provide non-lethal/humanitarian aid (US, UK, Germany, France and Canada). Please vote support or oppose on inclusion of those countries as combatants.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added a request for comments in order to get more oppinions. --Wüstenfuchs 12:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - According to guidelines of infobox, we should list only major combatants, usually up to four main ones from each side. In addition, combatants must be those parties / countries, which actively participate in the warfare with troops on the ground or support the war by extensive logistic / advisory support on the ground (agents, shipments, training officers).Greyshark09 (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Those countries are supporting the FSA and are actively involved in the conflict and their participation has a certain impact on number of events. --Wüstenfuchs 11:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Per Wusten and per Wikipedia's definition of a beligerent, which is the word used in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Those countries are actively engaged with the opposition and without their aid, they may be crushed by the regime. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @EkoGraf, this is a blatant disinformation to claim that i'm the only one to revert those highly dubious additions in infobox over the last days (as you said "you are the only one arguing about this at this point" - which is of course far from truth). This is highly inpolite my friend and POV-sh. I guess you forgot users Seyerslle [1], Kudzu1 [2], Meowy [3], I7laseral [4], StoneProphet [5].Greyshark09 (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is from voice of america 16 August and is I believe a not UNDUE appraisal of the situation " John Pike, head of Globalsecurity.com, an Internet research firm, says facing a well-equipped Syrian army are insurgents essentially armed with assault rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled anti-tank rockets.

“What they do not have is helicopters,” said Pike. “What they do not have is tanks. And that’s basically what the Syrian government is relying on to suppress this insurrection: this military imbalance that the rebels have light weapons and the government has heavy weapons.” Analysts say much of the weaponry used by the insurgents has either been captured from military depots, taken from soldiers of the Syrian army who have defected, or purchased on the black market. Reports also indicate that countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia are either providing funds to the rebels to purchase weapons or are directly supplying them with arms." The infobox is a pov caricature of on the ground realities imo, and is illustrated by what i believe are deluded remarks of alabamaboy. i believe an average listener to the news would believe 'the west' was utterly vacillating and hesitant over Syria and that would be correct imo - unike Russia. P.s - i agree with greyshark that it was a blatant lie to say he was the only one reverting- another eg. of a kind of a blind wilfulness to see the world only one way?? Sayerslle (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone a blatant lier is a breach of Wikipedia's rule on civility. Also, I was not the only one who said that Greyshark was the only one arguing. Futuretrillionaire also said that he was the only left complaining. How come you are not attacking him? EkoGraf (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to justify Sayerslle's behaviour, but you EcoGraf are trying to bend wikipedia rules, which is against WP:CIVIL, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:5P. There has never been a "month-long" infobox. There were many people to revert this dubious addition, which could barely exist for a day or two in a raw before being deleted time after time.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did never insult anyone, unlike others, and, at least in my point of view, its you who are violating WP:IDONTLIKEIT. However, at this point, I don't really care, I stated my opinion, what happens happens, we will see the will and opinions of other editors. As far as I go, I'm done. EkoGraf (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- If they're not fighting, they're not belligerents. I also dislike this double standard wherein it took months for pro-Assad editors to allow Iran to be present as a combatant in the infobox despite consistent reports, later confirmed by Revolutionary Guard officers themselves in Iranian media, of Iranian troops fighting in Syria, yet one report comes out suggesting Canada might be providing some basic intelligence reports to the opposition and they're falling all over themselves to add it. I just added Russia because I found sources dating back almost two months that it sent noncombat troops, as well as weapons, to Syria -- as reported in Russian media as well as Western and Arab media! I think some editors here have really bought into the Syrian state media agenda and it's affecting their ability to contribute to this page in a meaningful way. That's unfortunate. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose the current standing as well, but I think you might carry the same symptoms you accuse others of. You keep on bringing the point that reports confirm Iranian officers on ground are taking part in the conflict. I would like to see the sources that support this, including the one in which Revolutionary Guard officers confirm their role. Same for Hezbolla if available. If the western countries or others are kept, I think a good compromise which I support would be to hide them using Template:Collapsible list (as done in this infobox) to avoid giving them undo weight (which I assume, is the main reason for opposes). Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here you go: [6] [7] Surprised you hadn't heard about this already. I also support the idea of using the collapsible list, if these countries remain in the infobox. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support (see below) They are not belligerents, but as has been pointed out before, there are other war articles (I believe the Angolan Civil War article in particular was cited) that show "supported by" and a list of supporting powers. The countries should be added in such a "supported by" section. Likewise, in my opinion, and as per the above comment, Russia should be added as a supporter of the Assad regime. The key is that it has to be applied equally and without bias to both sides in the infobox.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article on Angolan civil war has been recently disrupted. Prior to that, the consensus was to keep supporting powers who actually had troops on the grounds, whether advisory (Soviet) or logistic (others).Greyshark09 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's been a long time since I have looked at that article. I'll have to check some of the more recent revisions on that page then.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose" After looking over some revisions from the past year on the Angolan article, there seems to be a lack of consensus and stability regarding "supporting states", as it seems to change arbitrarily. Due to the fact that the same would likely happen here in the future, I'm changing my vote to "oppose". Only list countries/groups with forces on-the-ground fighting (currently, Syrian Govt, rebels, Islamist militants, Kurdish groups, the IRGC [as I currently understand it], possibly Hezbollah...) If Turkey, the US/NATO, or the other Arab states send in forces, or the Russians get drawn into the fighting over the naval base at Tartus, then we should add the respective state as a belligerent.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - "If they're not fighting, they're not belligerents". ~Asarlaí 19:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia's definition of beligerent A belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat. So, combat is only one form of being a belligerent, not the only one. EkoGraf (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not agenst listing the states in the infobox, I'm agenst listing them as if they'r "combatants" (i.e. removing "Supported by"). I think the infobox should be kept as it is now. ~Asarlaí 20:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do you propose? How do we list them in the infobox, but not under combatants?

We keep the infobox as it is. We list the combatants (Syrian Army, Free Syrian Army, asf) and underneath that "Supported by:". That distinguishes between thoze actually fighting and thoze merely giving support. We can't lump them all together. ~Asarlaí 21:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should than change your vote from oppose to support, because this is a vote called upon by an editor who wants to remove the countries alltogether, even if the "Supported by:" note is there. EkoGraf (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greyshark's OP wasn't clear, but he said he wanted to include those countries "as combatants", so I assumed he wanted to remove the "Supported by". ~Asarlaí 17:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He wants to remove the countries alltogether. EkoGraf (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Oppose The only way I would support the addition of these coubntries is if it were laid out as it is in the Korean War article, its okay to place countries that provide medical support as it is a more neutral term but when you go into Non-lethal military aid and intelligence it crosses the POV line. I dont care what Wikipedia's definition of a beligerent is, wikipedia is not a reliable source used here as each conflict is diffrent, what it comes down to is what the sources say. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It actually matters what Wikipedia's definition of beligerent is because we are editing by their rules. EkoGraf (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Then if we only add the countries which provide medical support, then we could only add Canada, the only country currently providing medical supplies according to its reference source. Isn't it right then? Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes I would support that as medical aid is seen as a neutral thing when it comes to wars. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support providing intelligence and military aid, even if its nonlethal, is definitely acting in a hostile manner, so it meets the definition of belligerent.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support It is a key information, especially as the rebels are very little without the foreign backing. It shows that the Syrian civil war is used as a tool by the traditional ennemies of the country. --DanielUmel (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You support because it supports your personal POV. Great stuff. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Oppose It is is negligible information as the rebels receive veyr minimal support from them, and most war articles do not use this format, particularly for simple Intel and humanitarian aid like this. I7laseral (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the current layout. Would, however, support something akin to what is used at Korean War. Collapsing countries with indirect or minor support does two things: A) gives due weight in accordance with contribution and B) keeps the box from looking too confused and cluttered. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for the arguments made by users above. Sopher99 (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The section in which those countries are included is called belligerents. The definition of a belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner. Sending over CIA operatives¹ or having a ship off the Syrian coast supplying the rebels with intelligence² clearly qualifies as acting in a hostile manner. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -Several people have brought this up. This is an interesting solution as collapsing the minor supporting countries solves the "dubious" countries in the infobox problem. Also they're technically in the infobox, so it's understood that they are belligerents. I think we should have several categories for collapsing, mainly "non-lethal aid" and "intelligence support", or something like that.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support --Wüstenfuchs 09:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support EkoGraf (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support so long as each country is cited, and it applies to both sides equally. Seems like a good way to include verifiable material without necessarily being undue attention. In addition, in keeping some of the countries essentially hidden, I think it will also discourage random editors from tampering with it on a large scale in the future, so this placates another concern I had before.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ~Asarlaí 17:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional oppose - it does sound a reasonable solution and much more suitable with WP:WEIGHT and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, but it must be decided what is the criteria for inclusion. We cannot put all kinds of supports into the box altogether. While military and intelligence support on the ground can indeed count (like Turkey and maybe Qatar and Saudia if indeed sent arms and advisors), humanitarian or political support is too vague and UNDUE to be put there. Greyshark09 (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? It has already been agreed that sending nonlethal military equipment and intelligence counts as acting in a hostile manner, which is part of the definition of "belligerent". Just look at this discussion section and the one above titled "Redundant countries in infobox". Your opposition towards including any trace of Western support (from reliable sources) in the infobox is getting ridiculous. But I suppose it doesn't really matter, considering there is a strong consensus to include the minor supporting nations under collapsed format-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - this would bring with it endless discussions about what countries should be regarded as "minor supporting countries" (and thus in the collapsible section) and which as major. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As if there haven't already been "endless discussions" about the the infobox as it was.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The major ones are those who are bringing in arms and money for arms (Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey) and the minor oners are those providing non-lethal military aid. EkoGraf (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, seems like a good compromise but sources must be strong for including a country into the infobox. Another point, that Greyshark mentioned, whether "political support" without any material support should be included into the infobox is questionable and should be discussed further. JCAla (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last updated by: Futuretrillionaire (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for inclusion of countries, but not in collapsible list format (3): TaalVerbeteraar, Alabamaboy1992(?), DanielUmel(?)

• Support for inclusion of countries in collapsible list format (9): Futuretrillionaire, Wüstenfuchs, EkoGraf, L1A1 FAL, Asarlaí, Lothar von Richthofen, Knowledgekid87, Mohamed CJ, Kudzu1

• Oppose inclusion of countries in infobox (4): Greyshark09, Sayerslle, I7laseral, Sopher99

Comment- It looks like we have two extremist sides who will undoubtedly continue the edit war, with the majority supporting a middle-ground. Come on people, let's have some peace and end this already.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be ridiculous - the discussion on the 'Korean War option' started only yesterday morning (not counting the user who proposed it). The default duration for RfC's is 30 days. You're way premature drawing conclusions already. The idea is giving everyone time to comment on your proposal, rather than simply waiting for the support !votes to outnumber the oppose !votes and declaring victory as soon as that happens. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider myself extremist, because the general idea of including supporting parties of lesser importance in a collpasing box indeed can resolve a significant part of this arguement. I however think that for example a field of "non-lethal military support" is nonsense and self-contradicting. How "non-lethal" and "military" can integrate in the same sentence?! I think that there should be inclusion of countries/sides with a clear definition as following:

Combatabts/belligerents - those openly engaging in conflict (Syrian gov-t, rebel groups, Kurdish opposition and mujahedeen groups).

Supporting sides - providing a significant support on the ground with either limited troops, logistics or training (Hizbullah, Iran, Turkey), but not waging an open war.

Collapsable box - providing a significant support in equipment, funding and intelligence, but not sending actual troops to the region (Saudia, Qatar, maybe Russia, we can discuss others as well).

The rest - humanitarian, declarational, unproven or limited financial support or any kind of poorly sourced info should not be put in the infobox.

This is my positition on the issue, hope other editors will support this both reasonable and compromised suggestion.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note my position is that non-belligerents should not be listed, but if they are, they should be in collapsible list format and Russia must be included on the side of the Syrian government. Otherwise the infobox is POV. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed puzzling - how come Qatar and Saudia are mentioned (not speaking of such dubious additions as Germany, France and Canada), while Russian supplies of weapons are omitted. Qatar and Saudia may be inside a collapsable box, but Russia should be present as well on the other side.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I put Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iraqi Kurdistan in a collapsible list like the rest, but Futuretrillionaire reverted me because "There is no agreement in the talk page to do that". I thought the vote above was for putting all states who hav' given military help into a collapsible list? Surely the collapsible list should be for states who arn't actually fighting. Agree or disagree? ~Asarlaí 15:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wikipedia coverage of Libyan Civil War, there was a constantly updated map showing which areas are under government and opposition control. Why there isn't one for Syria? Wandering Courier (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

check this one http://twitpic.com/amdp68 Alhanuty (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information coming out of Syria is much less reliable than it was in Libya. In Libya, there were international reporters at the frontlines who could usually confirm claims of advances by either side. Not so much for Syria, where media access has been greatly restricted and where the rebels largely don't control distinct chunks of territory as they did in Libya. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current image is completely unfit, it impies there are "protests", while the country is swept by a bloodbath - 5,000 killed just in August. Better to have at least some kind of map to describe the things of the ground.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Greyshark, the current image is rather missleading. Although there are still protests in some parts, they are mostly small at this point and not continues. The government-rebel fighting has taken over. A collage of images should may be created like for the Libya war article. EkoGraf (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this article which includes a PDF map, there are reportedly over 30 rebel groups and no chain of command. Nobody knows what's going on. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we already have a collage for this article a while ago? What happened to it?-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably going to get bombarded for doing this, but I made a collage of Syrian war pictures from Wikimedia commons, and added it to the infobox.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Not perfect, but much better than before. Good job.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can put up a map? Some of them aren't so bad. http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff194/Kami888/Syrian_Civil_War.png is a good example. At this point we're getting an accurate picture of front lines; the main difference is these have to be collected using a much larger range of sources than in Libya. Grant bud (talk) 05:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore this post. A typo with "R" and "F" which are so close on this smart phone. I have reposted below. Special:Contributions/68.81.112.168.81.117 (talk) 16:1 7, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Adan

This is my third and last attempt to bring this to the attention of this page. I am not a regular contributer and so my previous comments may have been lost on this page due to poor placement. If by bringing this up again I have abused this page, I appologise in advance but I have received little acknowledgement on the main thrust of what I believe is a significant oversight.

This article does not mention the serious abuses of human rights by the Free Syrian Army documented by Human Rights Watch and media outlets. By the exclusion of this, I believe it gives a false characterization of what is happening. Please read and comment on the following two links and tell me if this information is relevant or not. Thank you.

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2017801064_syria21.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0416/Syrian-activists-to-rebels-Give-us-our-revolution-back 

68.81.112.197 (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Adan[reply]

Those articles are relevant and should be added to the article about the FSA and certain battles, which are mentioned in the articles... --Wüstenfuchs 18:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about the section "Human Rights Violations" of "Free Syrian Army"? 68.81.112.197 (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Adan[reply]

We don't even have a human rights violation of the Syrian army section. However we do have a section called human rights violations, which does in fact mention FSA rights violations. There's also a section on the FSA article anyway for that. Perhaps you guys should read the Syrian civil war Wikipedia article first before trying to determine what is and what isn't included in the article. Sopher99 (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "or" not "of" but unfortunatley my computer is the shop and I am using a smart phone. The "f" and "r" are very close on this tiny pad, further evidenced by the other typo I made "Human Fights". I am sorry that it proved to be too difficult a task for you to figure out my meaning. I clearly wasn't a difficult task to have an attitude problem. I have rad the article. Last I checked I didn't see any citation of Human Right Watch with the FSA's violations, or even the phrase human rights abuses associated anywhere with them in the article. I saw no mention of their intimidation of anti-Assad non-violent activists or the executions of nonRpolice, non-military unarmed defenseless Assad loyalists. If I am mistaken, could you dirrect me to that portion of the article. If it is absent, then I believe it's nonRinclusion to be further evidence of the bais of the article. 68.81.112.197 (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Adan[reply]

Here is a more up to date article mentioning that parts of the Free Syrian Army have vowed to not torture, and then gone ahead and done so anyway.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/15/despite-pledge-syrian-rebels-continue-to-torture.html

Also a video of an unarmed handcuffed man being tortured by the FSA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l96KiRVlCac

I do think this article should make some mention of this. If there are no objections< I will make a small edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.112.197 (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This really doesn't mean all that much. The people who made the pledge aren't the people who are then breaking it. It is the equivalent of the GOP saying it wouldn't raise taxes, then one GOP person voting to raise taxes. That wouldn't mean that the GOP as a whole broke it's pledge, especially if the one who broke it never signed the original pledge. Jeancey (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, the article as I have said before, only seems to reference human rights abuses from the Syrian Army and not the FSA. To be balanced, some mention of these abuses, or that at least Human Rights Watch has issued a report condemning abuses on both sides, would be balanced and useful. Also, this is not a pledge about raising taxes, these are about crimes against humanity. One doesn't have to sign a pledge to be a war criminal or guilty of human rights violations 68.81.112.197 (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was more referring to "parts of the Free Syrian Army have vowed to not torture, and then gone ahead and done so anyway." The parts that vowed to not torture aren't the same people who are then torturing. Mentioning the human rights abuses is fine, but implying that they claimed they wouldn't do it, and then did is incorrect. Jeancey (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Fair enough.68.81.112.197 (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's an absolute crock that Russia's addition to the infobox, based on numerous sources (including Russian media) stating it has sent troops and warships to Syria, is being continually reverted by a handful of editors -- the same editors who defend the presence of the likes of Germany and Canada on the opposition side. Russia is actively supplying lethal arms and munitions to a party in this civil war, which no Western country is known to be doing. If it were giving weapons or money for weapons to the rebels, these same editors would be tripping over one another to add it. If we're including Western countries that have done nothing more than provide humanitarian aid to opposition-held districts, we must include Russia, which has sent troops to reinforce its base at Tartus and is shipping weapons of war to the Syrian government for use in the conflict. The double standard is not acceptable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "there are no international sanctions against Syria" argument is also bogus, because attempts to impose sanctions have been repeatedly blocked by those dealing arms to Syria. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Putin stated that he doesn't support Assad. What Russia is doing is mentaining the good relations they have with Syira. International sanctions do not exsits, why is so? That's not the point. --Wüstenfuchs 21:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is reuters 10 hours ago reporting on Russia staying put in Syria and abandoning some plans they might have had to evacuate -"The report did not specify whether the plans for a possible evacuation included the withdrawal of a small number of "military specialists" Russia has said were in Syria to assist the government under bilateral arms contracts." so thats your 'just normal good relations'. but when a reuters report had a German ship giving intelligence to Britain and the US that is sufficient to get Germany in the infobox? why isnt that just normal good relations betwen allies. send weapons and supprt assad consitently and over time its business as usual, not worthy of mention, nothing to do with supporting ASsad, but if theres a REuters report saying 'Bild said a german ship sent intelligence to Britain and the US then thats a different matter isnt itSayerslle (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you forgot an important thing, the FSA doesn't have a state so they can't have bilateral relations... And they are giving their services for free... --Wüstenfuchs 21:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you forgot - the real world - this is from the independent today [8] - " We know we are not going to get any help from West; we are alone, we don't need their empty words." - thats the reality - you are taking the michael . - saw your language here on another artcle too -"launched by the Syrian Armed Forces in order to clean the Rif Dimashq Governorate from the Free Syrian Army " - you think that is impartial encylopedic language? gawd help usSayerslle (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rebels lie, since governments of certain states had already admited that they are aiding them so... --Wüstenfuchs 09:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fulfilling existing arms contracts is not the same as supporting the government in this uprising. For instance, the USA has been selling arms to Bahrain for years and continues to do so; yet the US isn't listed as a belligerent in Bahraini uprising (2011–present). There's no reliable source for your claim that Russia has sent troops to aid Assad – a rather improbable claim, too, as the Syrian army is large enough for Assad not to require foreign troops to help him. As for the warships: there's a Russian navy base at Tartous, of course Russian warships will be docking there. That's not supporting Assad. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is true, then why did Russia announce it would stop selling arms to Syria sixteen months into the conflict? [9] Clearly Russia was knowingly supplying the regime prior to July 2012. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd truly read my previous comment, you'd know the answer to that question. Hint: it's in the first four words of my previous comment. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They sent weapons to one side in a civil war. They did more to support the regime than any Western country has done to support the rebels. And they still have noncombat troops deployed in Syria. Remove Germany, Canada, the United States, etc., and I won't argue Russia belongs -- but if those countries are in, Russia must be added as well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, the Western countries are smart. They send loads of weapons to the Gulf and Turkey, who then send it to the insurgents. I guess their hands are clean in this. LOL. Or well, I guess their M 16 rifles[10] just dropped from the sky. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as the weapon depicted is an M16A1, it may very well have come from Lebanon. (Possibly supplied to the Lebanese Government by the US as aid, or a captured Israeli weapon from one of their many adventures in Lebanon, etc). Claiming that an M16 is definitive evidence is US aid is comparable to saying every extremist/militant group carrying Russian weapons like Kalashnikovs or RPG-7s are backed by Russia.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the USA is not providing any of these weapons yet. M16's are standard in Turkey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_equipment_and_uniform_of_the_Turkish_Army Sopher99 (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So where does Turkey get their M16s from? Bingo. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But they had M16's for many, many years... Its easy o give spares and what not. The USA didn't sell Turkey 50 or 100k m16s 5 years ago for the FSA. M16's are not the only contribution here. Other regular Turkish weapons to. What I am trying to say is that the USA has not made any decision ot arm them yet. After Obama's possible reelection they may. Sopher99 (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Turkey is part of NATO. It's been a U.S. ally since the 1950s. No conspiracy there. Also -- what is your point? Russia has been shipping arms directly to the regime, and there are persistent reports that it has also provided military advice and intelligence to the regime. We either remove the Western countries because they don't meet the definition of belligerent, or we apply the same standard to both sides and add Russia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Half the damn world uses M16s. AK-47 is a Russian licence/design that is found all over the place in everyone's hands as well. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one seems to get the point; the West does not have to send weapons directly to the rebels, as they already get western produced weapons through the Gulf and Turkey. FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same way Assad's forces get Russian-produced weapons from Russia, even though the Syrian treasury is depleted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syria gets its weapons directly, so no, not the same. The insurgents get their weapons indirectly from the West. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the Russian hand in the conflict is indeed much more "direct" than the Western hand. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is Press TV today - "British Foreign Secretary William Hague has revealed that his government authorized and facilitated “limited contacts” between the UK agents and representatives of the so-called Free Syrian Army. The contacts were part of a conspiracy hatched by Britain’s spying apparatus and the U.S. spying agencies to topple the popular government of President Bashar al-Assad." [11]This is the version of reality that the epigones of press tv want to foist on wp imo. Sayerslle (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The United States says it has credible intelligence that Iraqi Shiite fighters are in Syria on behalf of the regime. [12] -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American "intelligence" about Iraqi (or any Middle Eastern) matters should never be taken at face value. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In America we have what is called an Electoral Democracy. This means that Cheney and Rumsfeld no longer hold any post. I think we're safe with this one. Sopher99 (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They obviously didn't make evidence up themselves, the same intelligence agencies that operate now did. FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They did make the wmd evidence up themselves. CIA is run by people, not robots. Sopher99 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why it shouldn't be included. Here's how we word it: "According to one US official, there have been reliable reports that...". ~Asarlaí 19:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second this^^ Not that it should be any secret that Shi'ite Iraqis would be more sympathetic to Iranian interests (I.E. maintaining Assad's grip on power) after decades of suppression by a Sunni minority though...--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2012

Truth be told, I have seen many videos showing captured Mahdi army militants in the hands of FSA fighters. Not to mention, many Iraqi shi'ite clerics have called for a 'jihad' to save Bashar from the 'infidel' Sunnis. I have even seen some pictures from southern (Shi'ite) Iraq which show placards for the "Martyrdom" of Iraqi shi'a fighters who were killed in Syria. One thing though, most the evidence of this is in arabic articles/videos/pictures which are obsolete here, so whatever. Moester101 (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Truth be told", Youtube videos are not evidence. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen reports about Mahdi army operatives in Syria for more than a year, but so far most reliable sources are quite about it and are not going deep inside this issue. So I would wait till more reports pops out and than include it, not now. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why has it been removed? It was well sourced. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

because looking at the refs (2 refs, same article ) -it finishes up with the detail that - "No money has yet been delivered to Canadian Relief for Syria as the organization must first prepare a detailed plan for how it will be spent." so the $2 million of medical supplies have not even reached the opposition, and may never, but that is still no bar to shoving in canada as more relevant to the conflict than Putin/Russia. really the editing of the pov madhouse . On Putin's neutrality more evidence emerged yesterday "with the Kremlin-friendly broadcaster Russia Today," it is the first time Mr Putin has spoken to the media since his inauguration in May. In a short clip posted on Russia Today's website, Mr Putin appeared to castigate Western policy in Syria.

"You might just as well unlock Guantanamo, arm all of its inmates, and bring them to Syria to do the fighting. They're practically the same kind of people," Mr Putin said, presumably referring to the Free Syrian Army. Russia has, along with China, been the main international backer of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during the conflict." Thats in mainstream media, from 'The Independent', which wp should reflect not the assad-ian politics of a clique. Sayerslle (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is well sourced that... it did nothing related to the Syrian civil war, except some cloudy announcement of humanitarian funding in the future. Complete nonsense to put Canada in the infobox. Let's just put all the countries who voted against Syria in the UN and get done with it. Greyshark09 (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thats a good idea include china and russia under supported by..also include israeli and u.s support for rebels http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=280826 Baboon43 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh did you read the story? "Syria claims US, Israel, Qatar, Saudi Arabia supporting rebels." Yeah sorry no, not putting it under support... --Activism1234 19:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Sopher99 keep adding questionable and poorly sourced information from http://world.time.com/2012/03/01/eyewitness-from-homs-an-alawite-refugee-warns-of-sectarian-war-in-syria/. The Time Magazine is reliable, but, Who is Mohammed? Who is Ali? They dont qualify as RS! It could be anyone talking over the phone. Dafranca (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checked source, they are witnesses. This entire article, whether based pro assad or opposition accounts, stems from witnesses. Your argument is not valid. I7laseral (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So long as a RS quotes witnesses, it is reliable source. If an Unreliable source quotes witnesses, we don't put it in. Since this is Times magazene, it is perfectly reasonable to put them in. If you are complaining about the lack of a surname, it is perfectly normal for activists and witnesses to withhold their lastnames or have a false name to avoid punishment from security forces. I7laseral (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The times is like the RT of the u.s. Baboon43 (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who has watched the 5th Season of the Wire knows that sources with no last name and no photo are highly dubious. 68.81.112.197 (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Adan[reply]

TV shows don't influence how Wikipedia works. If Time got duped, then that's their problem they'll have to figure out. For now, Wikipedia works by taking Times as a reliable source and attributing any statements to that source. --Activism1234 20:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seens that I7laseral does not keep Neutral point of view, all his edits are anti-assad. He is also have received disruptive editing notice for this article. For me a witnesses that can not be verified is not RS. How the Times Magazine know "mohammed" is not lying? It clear as water that it is not a RS because it can not be proved. Dafranca (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dafranca (talk • contribs) 22:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia may work one way, but in the world of journalism I happen to know from first hand experiance reports constantly invent sources and quotes to make more sensationalism ad sell more papers or even promote a political agenda. Knowing this, mysterious sources with no last names or having any photo with just too perfect quotes are highly dubious. 68.81.112.197 (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Adan[reply]

A lot of people question if the media is telling the truth, and rightfully so. Only a few years ago we were told in the Iraq War there were weapons of mass destruction, and that there were mass graves of Saddam's victims uncovered, only to find no WMDs and find those mass graves were caused by the water crisis and starvation as a result of the first Gulf War and sanctions. This is why I share with you the following link about the news media. Do not be overly concerned with the name of the website, watch the videos for youself and make your own judgements.

http://new-power.org/2012/04/24/cnn-manufactures-news-in-syria/

All I suggest is that we please a healthy and fair amount of skepticism in using mainstream news reports. Sources that seem too vauge and too good to be true might in fact be Jason Blair-esque and ARE in fact too good to be true. 68.81.112.197 (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Adan[reply]

Now this is just laughable. We are supposed to listen to a communist revolutionary site as if it is RS? Especially using videos from Addounia and Russiatoday? Furthermore the media did not tell us there were wmds in Iraq. The media told us that Bush and his defense cabnit were telling us that there were wmds.I7laseral (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't even watch the video, then don't bother to comment. You mind is like a parachute, it only works when it is open. If you'd watch the links, you would see delibrate fabrication and acting done for CNN news reports and it is no laughing matter. We don't even have to go back to Iraq. Look at Libya, there were allegations Gaddafi was imploying merchinaries, something that now Amnesty International and other admit they have found no proof of, but instead these rumors served as motivation for racial violence. Or how about reports from"reliable sources" that Russia was deploying troops to Syria which were false and an exageration of routine activity. When falsehood is accepted as unquestioned truth and those who expose that falsehood with irrefutable evidence are dismissed out of hand, we are in trouble. I maintain the links will hold up to any scrutiny, your objects and CNN, will not 68.81.112.197 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Adan— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.112.197 (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did watch the videos. And once again, it was edited footage by Addounia and Russia today, that wasn't even in English. You did not provide any evidence whatsoever. You once again fell back on to using Syrian state tv and Russia Today, especially from a communist revolutionary site. Laughable plain and simple. You are just another "anti imperialist" conspiracybuff. Very closed minded. I7laseral (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you didn't watch them. I know because the first video has English subtitles and Anderson Cooper speaking at 3:45 to what I understand is English. You have now lied, and I don't see why I should continue to acknowledge you at this point. It is one thing to have your own views, but you crossed the line by lying. You have already exposed yourself as bais and not willing to even entertain scrutiny of pro-western sources. You have disqualified yourself from being taken seriously. If these were as laughable as you say, then you would have been able to wacth them and then try and refute them. You didn't even watch them. You also didn't make any mention of the third video, which is also dubious. I am only interested in what people have to say if they are willing to engage the material, not make ideological pronoucements as "evidence" in and of itself, ie, it's not mainstream Western and therefor automatically false. That is not a cogent argument. Some conventional new agencies have bad reportin (New Times and Jason Blair) and some non-convential reporting still gets good coverage. Do yourself a favor and stay away from personal attacks. You do not know me or my politics so it is not useful to point and scream "witch" and try to burn me because I offered some information that contradicts your view. 68.81.112.197 (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Adan[reply]

so Homs hasnt suffered really? [13]. if the point of the video was to make me question what is being said that is at all critical of Assad -it didnt personally - its was itself just ultra-dumb pro-Assad propaganda - 'lies-truth-fake-' blah blah - that doesnt mean one shouldnt try and be aware of what bias might be around the place - on the contrary - (CNNi was criticized recently for not showing a film they had made for them and spent a lot of money on, on the situation in Bahrain - probably because it showed the powerful in that country in a very bad light) - but if you think only the pro-Assad media is 100% reliable, 68.81.112.197, well, i personally think thats very wrong-headed. Sayerslle (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listen Mr IP, all three videos are whack. The first one has Andersons's English, but then 6 minutes worth of Addounia edited footage that is in Arabic. The second Video is further stupid. The USA was in saudi Arabia, its a fact. John Jesco was only on the CNN crew for a year. That video segment was probably comedy, especially because he said "here is CNN's logo" on the missile. The Third video, Russia today - is well.. Russia Today. Nothing about what you put forth raises any question about reliable sources. All this confirms to me is that your a conspiracy nut.You didn't just offer me alternative views, you offered me a mesh of lame attempts by Addounia and RT to discredit Al jazeera, hosted on a communist revolutionary site. Am I the only one who finds that funny? I7laseral (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, not this again. If you have problems with Wikipedia guidelines, bring it to attention of administrator. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

What I find funny is how you don't see the irony of calling on a conspiracy nut (which is a personal attack and against Wikipedia policy, I hope) and then alledge an unedited video is an edited one and come up with all kinds of outlandish excuses ande explainations without a shred of proof and use ideology in and of itself as grounds for verification of truth or falsehood. With this line of thinking you'd be great working for the Bush Administration or CIA, which I am sure you'd say are reliable sources. 68.81.112.197 (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Russia Today any less credible than BBC or CNN ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.173.112 (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cry me a river. First I never called you a conspiracy nut, though I think that you are one. Second, if you want to present changes to basic wikipedia rules - WP:RS - bring it to attention of administrators. Users here cannot do anything about it. Third, I don´t care about your source, every year I tend to graveyard of my grandfather who was killed by communistic regime that your website loves so much and therefore I am not interested in a thing they have to say. Above that, it is unusable source even if it had a Jesus himself talking to masses. Wikipedia is not interested in truth. It is interested in verifiability per WP:VNT. Fourth and last point - RT is full of conspiracy nutbags, who believes that 9/11 was an inside job, that HAARP is a weather control device that is responsible for Haiti earthquake and most importantly it was identified as source with questionable reliability by administrator here WP:PUS. That is all. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't get hysterical. I quote you as writing "All this confirms to me is that your a conspiracy nut." I do believe for another time you have lied, suggesting you are perhaps a pathological liar. As far as "crying you a river" you must have a mighty high opinion of yourself to believe I care what you think. I am merely pointing out that you are likely in violation of Wikipedia's harassment policy as well as an unsavory character. However, your posts have also demonstrated that you may have insecurity issues by feeling the need to put others down rather than simply disagreeing, and perhaps you are also emotionally unstable. I don't see what the ideology of the site providing links has to do with CNN faking news reports, like American media has been known to do. Communism, like your dead grandfather, is a red hearing, that has nothing to do with anything about Syria or accurate reporting. If you feel it necessary to lecture people about the evils of Communism, and how they are anti-imperialist nutjobs, I suggest taking a trip to Vietnam, where the United States traveled half way around the world and killed over 4 million Vietnamese people, the majority of whom were civilians, many elderly, women and children, simply because the United States did not like the idea of anti-imperialism and Communism. Or perhaps you can pontificate to the families of the over a million Koreans killed in the Bodo League massacre by the South Korean puppets about how they should be grateful for the anti-communists imperialists who murdered their families. I am sure they would all be fascinated in what you have to say and teach to them.

However, none of that has to do with your fundamental inability to grasp logic. You simply have asserted that a news source was faked without any source or your own showing this. Your logic is flawed. It is based on an ideological outlook, not a substantive one. It would be like me saying, "I am a pagan, or a feminist, and I refuse to look at any information written by a Christian because Christians burned 50,000 women at the stake for being witches. Therefor, I reject the Christian Science Monitor, a leading paper in the world, as a source at all. Furthermore, without any evidence, I will now assert as fact, that everything the Christian Science Monitor writes is probably faked. I don't need sources or evidence for this. They are Christians that is enough of an explain." You sir, are beyond ridiculous. For the last time, please stop wasting my time with your blather and stop slobbering all over this section and allow more serious people to comment. Thank you. 24.238.93.30 (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Adan[reply]

First I am letting you know that I am reporting you for this. Second, above being what you described here, if you spent more time reading this thread than finding new insults on Google you would realize that that name at the end of every post is signature of the user and that it was not me who called you a conspiracy nut. See you on a ban list, soon. With worst regards, EllsworthSK (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what exactly is being reported? Your reasoning is not sound. The dismissal of a Communist website, who did not kill you grandfather and simply put together a few links is a red-hearing and has nothing to do with the CONTENT of the what is being shown, no more than one objecting to the Christian Science Monitor for the crusades or some such thing. Attack the messenger, ignore the message. Old tactic. The fact that you would exploit the death of your Grandfather to suppress the free expression of other news sources is sad. I am sorry for the error of not understanding how wikipedia sings users, etc, but I feel you then have taken the opportunity to slyly say the say the same thing anyway, so no apology is needed. I would only add that having a guest on a program does not automatically tie you with their views. I think most major cable news in the US has had say Ann Coulter as a guest, and she maintains there was a Communist plot to overthrow the US, and thus McCarthism was justified. She also called Aparthied justified because the opposition (black South Africans) were "animals" and even called to invade all Muslim countries and convert them to Christianity. That is whacky stuff, but I think we should distinguish giving airtime versus endorsement of views. If your only complaint about Russia Today is that they are government-funded (like BBC or PBS) or their guest list, neither seems to be particularly unique or relevant.24.238.93.30 (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Adan[reply]

For violation of WP:CIVIL, unfortunatelly you probably do not know what is general civility so I wont bother explaining no more. And I am dismissing unreliable source, very simple thing that I have written several times. You inability to comprehend something like that is not my problem, but yours. So keep it for yourself. As for the rest, start your own blog as I do not care, since it has nothing to do with topic on hand. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where to begin... Where to begin...

Well for starters, the person who accused that ip of being a conspiracy nut is me - not EllsworthSK.

I don't put people down either. The only words that would come to anyone's heads when being presented with lunatic conspiracies and fringe presentations from propaganda mouthpiece media is conspiracy nut. It is not an insult to anyone's intelligence, it just provides the image that no matter how hard one tries to reason with them, they will continue to press on with their farcical views fanatically. It doesn't have to be loud, or hysterical - just radical. The word nut is used because nuts are things with hard shells - you can't get through to them easily.

Second You CSM analogy deals with semantics. Your comparison to the logic that I would associate past events with the current is false. I am not associating past records here, I am telling you the now and present. Right now Addounia and Russia Today are state controlled propaganda channels. I did not mention their history, or there future for that matter. I did not dissect the semantics of their name, or bring up stereotypes. I am telling blatantly the context of the situation regarding the sources that Ip was presenting.

This Wikipedia page was constructed by filtering the vague, farcial, unreliable, and biased media content out. Do not approach us with the flotsam we filtered out and say "Here is an alternative view". I7laseral (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I did confuse the one comment with the other. I am in fact new to Wikipedia. However, it's a moot point, because you've just done the same any way. In any case, I'm addressing both and all here anyway. Second of all, anything can be called a conspiracy or propaganda. What was embedded journalism but cheer-leading for the invasion and conquest effort? The fact that anyone who would challenge the pre-war case's validity of WMD in Iraq was called a nut. Did things like Iran-Contra happen? Were things like the Gulf of Tonkin lied about? Were things like the Mi Lai massacre covered up? Didn't Wikileaks blow the lid on many more purposeful cover ups? But yet you maintain to simply raise a question about being skeptically is somehow lunatic. No, to believe unquestioningly and blindly is insane. No one is using clips about 9/11 being an inside job or not, or HARP, just this clip, which you are constantly shifting focus from. It's a tactic called attacking the messenger to avoid dealing with the substance of the message. It is the oldest derailment in the book. Also, what you say of Russia Today could be said of the BBC or PBS. More importantly, the new millennium has shown wonderful expansion into private-funded propaganda. However, regardless of who carried the story, the footage is interesting in and of itself. the audio, what is being said and so on. It is still you who is basically alleging a fabrication with what evidence? The evidence that the views expressed on the station are "fringe", which is still a subjective term. One is not synonymous with the other. One is to say, they are not conventional, the other is to say they are outright liars and fabricators. If you have evidence of Russia today fabricating stories, then share it as evidence. On the other hand, I can cite time when CNN has deliberately lied int heir stories, and a number of other American media outlets. Rather than laundry list, the first I remembered was CNN reported in the Seattle protests of the WTO in 1999 that no rubber bullets were fired. Even when people called them to correct them, they ignored the testimonials people brought forth (plus their camera crew were there and saw it happening themselves). It was not until someone took the footage they got off a camcorder and posted the rubber bullets being fired that CNN HAD to change their story. I could give you a list for pages if that's what you want. But of course, that wouldn't matter because you don't operate on "truth" or even what's "verifiable" (um, verifiable comes from the Latin word "veritas" which means "truth", ie verdict, veracity, verifiable, etc). What you care about is normative. But I'm going to inform you, your normative isn't iron-clad but relative. Take a poll about what people think about say 9/11, or US intentions in Syria in the US, you'll get one result that has one side as normative and the other fringe. Open up that same poll to the world, you will likely find those percentages reversed.

Indeed, for years US mainstream media reported for example Al Qaeda was a real enemy army, that they very well may have sleeper cells around the country and the world, that they had intricate networks and headquarters in caves. They had "experts" and officials repeating these things, and that later Iraq had WMDs, etc. All of which were false. Al Qaeda never was an army, there were only a bunch of rouge financiers who only started using that name after they realized the Americans were using that to identify them. Even the BBC (which I suppose is state-controled propaganda) many years later ran a documentary, "The Power of Nightmares" showing how the whole idea of Al Qaeda was a deliberate exaggeration of the capabilities of the enemy forces much like what had been done throughout the Cold War (ie, Reagan claiming Nicaragua was three marching days from Texas, of repeated statistics showing the Soviets were three times or five times stronger than Western forces). And with each one of these lies we saw it handed to the media and disseminated to the people like propaganda.

Let's for a moment, put aside this evidence of CNN doctored reports (Which you have yet to cite a source saying that in fact these are doctored by Russia Today and the Syrian Media, or brought for any evidence of doctored reports by these agencies, thus making you claim unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, in other words it's just your opinion), even with that aside, just this July, the Associated Press reported the Russians were sending a massive Naval fleet to Syria and could deploy counter-terrorism troops, except none of that was true. There was only the routine naval presence. Or how about the reports from 2011 that Gaddafi was employing new African mercenaries in the Civil War, carried by several major news outlets, only to be found false after investigation by various NGOs who were present in Libya, including Amnesty International? Even if these videos exposing CNN didn't exist, there are numerous other examples well documented for many years that show the American media deliberately distorts and lies in coverage of events, and that they get it wrong and on major things, particularly in war and conflict coverage. Or is to point this out, the ramblings or a conspiracy nut? A fringe individual with absolutely no evidence of the American media ever getting wrong? Ask any journalist, there is a slogan they make all journalists learn once they are employed with an outlet (if they didn't get it in journalism school first) "never let the truth get in the way of a good story."

If one were honest, the vague, unreliable biased and farcical coverage is Western News media. 24.238.93.30 (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Adan[reply]

[14] Head over to WP:RSN if you want to push this nonsense further. Go waste someone else's time. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy over sensationalism is never a waste of time. As I am a new-comer, thank you for pointing me in the right direction for who to bring this to the attention of. 24.238.93.30 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Adan[reply]

Is there another picture that can be used for the infobox? The current montage appears to show the war entirely from the standpoint of the opposition. I like the idea of a montage, but can we include, say, a picture of Assad or his father, or something from the Syrian military, or somesuch so that it's not all "the rebels and their cause?" It's not a big deal, but it does give the opening of the article a pro-opposition tone. 150.148.0.65 (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't give that tone. From March 2011 - Jan 2012 it was all about protesters being killed. The other three picture only show FSA and destruction from shelling. Nothing being implied here either. Sopher99 (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The three pictures are FSA, FSA, FSA, crimes of the government (at least, that's what we're told by the caption). Contrast WWII, where the opening photomontage is Allies, Allies, Axis, Allies, Axis, Allies. It takes two sides to have a war, and the image has the opportunity to show both but only shows one. That, plainly stated, is biased. The thing looks like an FSA recruiting poster, to be honest ("You can join the crowds, join the defectors, or join the militia, and here's your justification!"). 150.148.0.65 (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find a free use picture of the Syrian military in action from the past year and a half and we'll talk. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of images within the article itself that might be used. Showing a pro-Assad rally instead of an anti-Assad rally (or alongside?) would provide some balance. There are two pro-Assad rally pictures in one section, which is a little redundant, so moving one of them to the lead montage seems like an option. The riot police picture also seems a valid option, even if it is less dramatic. Another option would be to simply have a single lead picture (e.g. Wikipedia's article on the American Civil War) rather than the montage, though that would be limiting in the sense that the multiple pictures show multiple phases and dimensions of the conflict and a single image would be less informative, even if it were more neutral. 24.16.0.80 (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the bytes are now 212k. Any chance we can bring it down to 199? Pages 200k plus tend to hurt the servers, and making editing impossibly slow. Sopher99 (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on trying to summarize the "Uprising and civil war" section, which now looks more like a timeline. By the way, where is the size of the article indicated? I'm having trouble finding it.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this page lags like nobody's business. Major reductions should be considered. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on cleaning up lots of small reference things. I just did a first pass, and I cut out nearly 2k of truly useless stuff, like adding .com after a publisher, or having the publisher's name in the title of a citation. Jeancey (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a step in the right direction, at least. Might only get us a few k down, though, and this page is long past the point where that will make a huge difference. We should discuss (re)moving chunks of content. The page is also very long and cumbersome to read. It should be done deliberately and with proper discussion though—none of the machete jobs done by User:Oxycut. We should start by identifying sections that are too long or are not quite important enough to be part of the main article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Possibly the Uprising and civil war section? There seems to be a lot of specific info and dates in there, maybe there is a way to make it more of an overview, rather than so many specifics? Jeancey (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Specifics should be saved for the smaller articles, I agree. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just condensed a lot of stuff in the lede, using newer sources that contained the same information. By my reckoning, we have cut nearly 10k from the article by simply condensing verbose sentences and cleaning up references. Hopefully this means that there is more we can do without igniting any edit wars. Jeancey (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I need a break, so I'll stop for now, but we did manage to cut it down by 14k or so, and it is now under 200k. We should definitely continue though, since it's just going to get out of hand again if we don't. Jeancey (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's been creeping up again, now around 208k. We really need to consider cutting/exporting content now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to start with the lede, as some of those paragraphs are super long, especially that last one. Maybe if we simply state that both sides have been accused of abuses, and that refugees have fled to neighboring countries. That way, the exact abuses don't need to be detailed (they are stated later in the article) and the exact countries that the refugees are going to don't have to be listed, along with their references (these are also stated later in the article). I tried to do this before, but someone ended up reverting it without a edit summary and I didn't want to start any more edit wars so I left it alone. Jeancey (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is selling weapons to another country. Russia is a big weapon seller, they sell weapons to a large panel of countries across the world. It doesn't mean they are supporting one side. United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey are giving weapons, intelligence, logistic to rebels for free. They are clearly helping them. This is not the case of Russia. It is very simple to understand and realize. --DanielUmel (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point also. Adding Russia is a clear example of POV pushing. I'm getting an impression that this is being done just to make some sort of a "balance"... One side supporting A, other supporting B. That's not the case here. --Wüstenfuchs 12:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is supplying the government with weapons to be used in the war, intervening to block action against Syria at the United Nations, providing vocal support for the Syrian government's actions, and sending troops and warships to defend its "interests" in Syria at Tartus. Yet we don't want to include it even though we're all so excited to be able to put the United States in an infobox for the tremendous violence of...sending the rebels non-lethal supplies? Huge double standard. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

completely agree with Kudzu1, it seems to me that some editors here are starting to sound like official spokespersons of Syria's Foreign Ministry. Moester101 (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the Libyan civil war battle articles, the results are described as either "pro-Gaddafi victory" or "anti-Gaddafi victory". But for the Syrian battles, the results are described as either "FSA victory" or "Syrian Army victory". Why are they not "pro-Assad" or "anti-Assad"? -- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's less biased and more objective. Also the parliamentary opposition that acctualy supports the Syrian Army isn't pro-Assad they are just against the rebels. To make it simple, the Syrian Army fights against, what they see as islamism and foreign agression. --Wüstenfuchs 13:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats wrong, the parliamentary opposition are pro-Ba'athists who may believe they are not Ba'athists but are actually Ba'athists... How can you be a communist and still not support a communist government (or even a Marxist government)??? And how can a centrist party espousing more freedom, support a repressive regime... What the parliamentary opposition support is invalid because there is no legal opposition in Syria... In the Libyan Civil War the sides were referred to as pro and anti-Gaddafi because of the political system in Libya; Libya was an autocracy were power was wielded by one-person, that is, power was wielded more-or-less by Gaddafi alone... Secondly, as the conflict evolved, the military was weakened (the reason for this was several purges Gaddafi launched against the miiltary in the 1990s after a failed anti-Gaddafi military coup) to such an extent that the pro-Gaddafi movement had to fight with the help of certain loyalist tribes.. Thirdly, while its correct to say that the al-Assad family have established a monarchist-fascist form of system were the leader is everything; Bashar al-Assad does not rule alone, he rules Syria alongside his family and proteges with help from the Alawi community... --TIAYN (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"With help from the Alawite community", uh, and help from much of the Sunni, Christian, Druze, and Kurdish communities as well. The question should rather be, how can you be a communist and support a religiously based uprising against a secular, Socialist government? The biggest enemy of leftists are religious fundamentalists, not socialist dictators. Some people did learn from what happened in Iran and Afghanistan in the 1980s, after all, but western leftists are still making the same stupid mistakes. FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, NATO! [15][16] I hope the "rebel" cheerleaders here will realise just what the heck they're doing before it's too late.[17] FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is a non-stopping edit-warring in the infobox section, i suggest to make a poll whether to include Russia as a military and intelligence support for the Syrian Regime in the infobox . Please vote support or oppose on inclusion of those countries as combatants. Alhanuty (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, we won't take a poll. WP:DEMOCRACY. If majority of users would say we add for example, the Planet of Mars supporting Syria, would we do that? No. You must understand the difference between selling and sending. --Wüstenfuchs 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i understand,but there is alot of edit warring over the issue so,let take a poll over it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 15:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poor example. No RS describes Martian arms being supplied to Syria or Martian political pressure being used to keep Syria free of global sanctions. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -Russia should not be mentionned in the infobox, this is against the reality and pure propagand. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and United States are giving weapons and intelligence to rebels in hope they will destabilize the syrian governement. Russia is selling weapons in a state to state normal relation. They are selling weapons to a large panel of countries like they do with Syria. This is professional business. --DanielUmel (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lets take take a poll DanielUmel so,that edit warring over Russia ends . Alhanuty (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -It's just a trade agreement. It's not the same thing as supplying a side with war materials for free with the intention of harming the opposing side.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A country blocks efforts to sanction a partisan side and ships lethal materials to that side, and suddenly it's "just professional" and "business as usual"? Sorry, not buying it. A number of editors in the last RfC expressed opinions along the lines of "well without XYZ countries supporting them, the rebels would be nothing and it's important to show that". Fair enough. But why is this standard not uniformly applied? Where would the Syrian government be without their friends in Moscow keeping them stocked with guns and free from UN-imposed sanctions? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: Countries don't need to obey the UN decisions and at the same time those countries don't violate the international law... So, we add China, India, Kazakhstan, Russia and half of the world as they haven't imposed sanctions on Syria. And let me remind you, the santions weren't approved by the Security Council. --Wüstenfuchs 23:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhm, you understood approximately none of what I said. The UN has not sanctioned Syria. Why is this? Because China and Russia wield veto power [18]. You do understand how the Security Council actually works, don't you? This doesn't have anything to do with merely not imposing sanctions. This is actively stopping efforts to impose them and supplying weapons to that party in a state of open warfare. "International law" is a red herring here. Fact of the matter is, Russia is providing a huge amount of support to Syria, and regardless of whether or not you want to dress that up with the mobspeak label of "business", it makes Russia as much of an active part in the conflict as any of the Western countries listed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are wrong, so if Russia doesn't support the santcions it means they are pro-Assad, so in order to become neutral you must support sanctions... leave it out. --Wüstenfuchs 13:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "You are wrong" Oh man, what a quality argument. Allow me to respond in kind: [19]. You seem to be incapable of basic arithmetic, so I'll put 2 and 2 together for you. Blocking sanctions alone is not what I'm talking about. Blocking sanctions *and* preferentially supplying one side with lethal weapons and training that side to use said weapons is. Real "neutrality" would be blocking sanctions and suspending arms shipments. Russia has not done the latter, and has instead continued to pour gasoline into the growing flames. "Just business" is a smokescreen and is sheer mobspeak. We have RS like the New York Times saying that "Russia has been the lifeline for President Bashar al-Assad throughout the conflict, providing weapons and diplomatic support to help keep his government afloat. In turn, Russia has castigated the United States for its support of opposition forces". And The Guardian: "Russia also has said it has military advisers in Syria training the Syrians to use Russian weapons, and has helped repair and maintain Syrian weapons." Please explain to me how any of this describes a "neutral" disposition. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nope... they can sell what ever they want. You are not the one who will say what is neutral and what isn't. Syria is not under arms embargo. It's same like selling food, the army also needs to eat. --Wüstenfuchs 14:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • You were the one to inject neutrality here; now you're just backpedalling. No, food is not the same as lethal weapons and training. Food is not directly used to kill other Syrians. "Legality" is a red herring. The fact that support is given "legally" or "illegally", whether it is in the form of "aid" or "contracts" does not change the fact that it is support. See my comment at the bottom of the semantics section below. Support is support. Russian support for the regime has had a greater effect on the conflict than Germany having a boat offshore monitoring troop movements. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Frankly, this all arguments against are semantics, nothing more. Is Russia supplying Assad regime with means to continue its fight against armed opposition? It is. Are Russian government actions further strengthening military capacity of Syrian army and its allied militias? They are. And that does not only apply to arms, helicopters, trainers and such but also to vital supplies like oil, printing of money after it was banned in Europe etc. Russian actions certainly supports Syrian regime in a similar way that Turkish, French and US actions support Syrian opposition. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Russia has MILITARY ADVISORS in Syria.... [20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoorichter (talk • contribs) 15:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. That the other "it's complicated" stuff is in the infobox is also undesirable. The infobox is supposed to be a quick snapshot that has no illusions of being thorough - we have an entire article for that, and we can have entire articles (e.g. France in the American Civil War or Allies of World War II) to explain the very complicated details. It's an infobox, keep it simple. A Counterproposal would be to have the two primary parties in the infobox, and an article for each side on who supports them, linked from the infobox, much like the WW2 article. 150.148.0.65 (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • I completely agree. Including non-belligerent supporting parties overly complicates the infobox at best and is deliberately misleading at worst. But either way, there needs to be a balanced presentation, and right now certain editors are allowing their personal feelings about the conflict to get in the way of WP:NPOV. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • This is quite acceptable. Either Russia goes in the box, or everyone else comes out of the box. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Based on the criteria for inclusion of other parties, and the importance of Russia's arms shipments to the government. And by the way, these aren't just any weapons- they include attack helicopters and missile defense systems, which obviously aren't so easy for the Syrian government to otherwise obtain via weapon smuggling. They aren't just trying to get a good deal. --Yalens (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Russia is indisputably helping Assad militarily, economically, and politically. Moester101 (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Fulfilling existing arms contracts is not the same as supporting the government in this uprising. For instance, the USA has been selling arms to Bahrain for years and continues to do so; yet the US isn't listed as a belligerent in Bahraini uprising (2011–present). There's no reliable source for the claim that Russia has sent troops to aid Assad – a rather improbable claim, too, as the Syrian army is large enough for Assad not to require foreign troops to help him. As for the warships: there's a Russian navy base at Tartous, of course Russian warships will be docking there. That's not supporting Assad. Copy-paste from an earlier discussion, before this became a !vote. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are three sources that are apparently "supporting" the claim that Russia is actually aiding Syria with weapons. Now, there is a difference between selling and aiding (giving arms for free respectively).

I'm not a native English speaker, however, google gives those definitions for:

• selling - "Give or hand over (something) in exchange for money: "they had sold the car"."
• aiding / giving - "Help, assist, or support (someone or something) in the achievement of something." / "Freely transfer the possession of (something) to (someone); hand over to: "they gave her water"."

First source has title "Is Russia Sending Troops to Syria?". We can have two answers here - yes and no. The answer is yes, but they are sending the troops to their, Russian, base in Syria. Think like this, is USA aiding Bahrain's or Saudi's regimes against the protesters there just beacuse they are sending their ships there? :) No.

The second source is RT's "Russia will continue to supply weapons to Syria by contracts", now, when one would add RT's claim that Kosovo is aiding the rebels the answer was - RT is not reliable it's government-owned TV network. Why I can't see the same argument over this claim? Even though the title is very clear, Russia will contiune to sell arms to Syria not giving arms.

The thir source is unreliable Pravda... "Russian warships in Syria: Any guesses?", Russian warships in their own base in Syira? How dare they? --Wüstenfuchs 15:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong on that one. A vegetable seller is actively supporting you if he accept to sell his carrots. That's the logic here. --DanielUmel (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what's our criteria? Maybe Turkey is selling arms, but for a really good deal. If they accept cash payment, does that mean they're supporting or just a neutral party that happens to have a contract to sell weapons? What if Qatar isn't taking money, but it's getting something out of the deal another way (say, the way Russia is getting a naval base on the Mediterranean out of supporting the Syrian government, for example)? That's the nature of most alliances -- most are alliances of convenience in some way or another. Russia is arming Assad; Turkey is are arming the rebels. If one is in the infobox, both must be. Otherwise there's no consensus from this quarter to include either of them. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What if, what if... we aren't speaking of "what if", but what sources say, and the sources say that those countries are either giving or aiding rebels wich isn't equal with selling at all. And good point over there Daniel... For example, I'm going to rob a bank and I buy a crowbar, so police arrests the merchant because he supported me. --Wüstenfuchs 18:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foxy, you're the king of bad examples. A better example is: I want to rob a bank, so I go to buy a gun (who the hell robs a bank with something as clumsy as a crowbar?). I openly talk with the merchant about how I am going to rob a bank with it. The merchant is aware of what I am going to do with that gun, as are all of the other customers in the store. The merchant then comes with me outside of the bank and gives me demonstrations on how to use the gun in full public view. If the merchant sells me the gun in full knowledge that I am going to commit a violent crime with it and provides instruction on its use, he may be reasonably considered to be aiding and abetting, maybe even complicit in conspiracy. Selling arms and providing advisors to the Syrian government right now is no different. The government is in a state of open warfare with a section of its populace, and the entire world (Russia included) is fully aware of it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and United States are shipping weapons for free, it has already been established. They also admit backing the rebels against the Syrian governement. There are no proofs that Russia is doing more than normal business in Syria and calling for a negociated solution between all parts. There is just no solid material on Russian support. If refusing a foreign invasion or foreign sanctions in Syria is now a mark of support, Wikipedia has reached new low. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're delusional. Read the refs. And there is no such thing as doing "normal business" with a government that is destroying its own cities and killing its own people. It's a civil war and Russia, by sending weapons to the Syrians and warships to the coast, is involved far more than the United States is. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is not involved in this civil war. They are fullfilling contract with a country which is not under sanctions. You don't like it but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that go with facts. --DanielUmel (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So it's ok to try and slant the article to push the notion that one side is used as a "tool" because some countries are supplying bandages and body armour, but if a country repeatedly blocks efforts [21] to sanction the other side and continues to ship real, lethal weapons to it, it's just "business as usual"? Man, you wouldn't know "facts" if they hit you square in the face. I'd take you more seriously if you demonstrated even a token commitment to NPOV, but you really don't even pretend to. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are providing weapons to and providing political cover for a faction in a civil war -- just as Turkey and Saudi Arabia are. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it do you... it's not like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, unlike those two, Russia doesn't support any side of the war and it's not giving but selling arms. --Wüstenfuchs 23:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. Selling arms. Just because they get some rubles on government account it somehow makes it different from KSA provision of Steyrs from which in return they get interest. Russia is covering Assad politically, that is acknowledged fact, they are supporting him with more and more arms deliveries as well. And I am not even mentioning North Korea [22] whose support was acknowledged by UN and which is under UN weapons ban. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The FSA and the Government of Syria don't have the same status, the FSA is illegal, criminal organization (according to the international law) while the Government isn't. This same government is able to make contracts as they wish as they are representative of a nation, which isn't the case with the FSA or the SNC. Second, Russia sticking to the international law and opposing foreign intervention doesn't mean it's supporting al-Assad but supporting the will of the Syrian people, ie, Russia is leting them to sort out things by themselves. So any country trading with Syria is actually pro-Assad? Not at all. It's like USA supporting regimes of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, which are more brutal then Assad's regime is, just because they are trading with them and refuse to impose some sort of an embargo on them because they are killing innocent people, which is what they are doing. --Wüstenfuchs 23:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the FSA is illegal, criminal organization (according to the international law) could you post some source for that? Some UNGA or UNSC resolution telling this. Maybe the extent from international law. Also indirectly saying, and heavily implying, that will of Assad is will of Syrian people is something I did not expect from you. As for Bahrain and KSA, both autocratic monarchies which suppress any opposition, they are not right now anywhere near current Syrian level of human rights abuse. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the Assad regime is the most brutal regime in the area ,this regime kills women and child and make interviews with people who are going to die . bahrain and saudi arabia may be some inregularites in human rights, but assad regime cannot be compared,this regime has used illegal weapons ,killing people who are calling for freedom . Alhanuty (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Legality" is not the standard of inclusion here. "Aid" is not the standard of inclusion here. "Support" is:

support, n.

• The action or an act of helping a person or thing to hold firm or not to give way; provision of assistance or backing.
• The provision or availability of services that enable something to fulfil its function or help to keep it operational.
• The action of preventing failure, exhaustion, or perishing; provision of necessary resources.

Russia indisputably performs the listed functions. It is thus a source of support for the Syrian government. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Throughout the conflict, Russia has been the lifeline for President Bashar al-Assad, providing weapons and diplomatic support to help keep his government afloat." (New York Times) [23]

The supporters do have a fair point. Russia is playing a somewhat important role. However, including Russia in the infobox is very misleading and POV. In the UN resolution debates, Russia is looking at the conflict from a neutral perspective, urging cooperation from both the government and the rebels, rather than just condemning Assad, which was what the West was doing. From the Western perspective, Russia is supporting Assad, but in reality, Russia is more neutral than the US, which is clearly anti-Assad and pro-opposition. Russian support should be highlighted in the article, but not in the infobox. -- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is not neutral. It's arming Assad and defending him at the UN despite the actions of his government. Look, I am by no means blind to the abuses perpetrated by the rebels, the jihadist element among them, or the fact that Saudi Arabia, one of the more vociferous anti-Assad regimes (which I am by no means convinced belongs in the infobox, seeing as that there is no proof of Saudi Arabian troops in Syria), has an awful human rights record in its own regard. But the Syrian regime is clearly carrying out some disturbing acts of violence against its own people, and Russia has backed it to the hilt -- providing verbal cover for its claims that all the rebels are "armed terrorist gangs" and "foreign mercenaries", continuing to send it weapons even though Assad is basically out of money and is obviously using Russian arms to wage civil war, sending troops and warships to guard its naval base at Tartus that is leased from the Syrian government, blocking attempts at UN sanctions, and the like. If we're including the United States and Western powers -- in fact, I'd say if we're including any country that has sent weapons to any side in Syria, as opposed to combat troops a la Iran -- then Russia must be in the infobox as well. Personally, I think none of them should be considered belligerents at all, and a prominent section of the article should discuss foreign involvement. I'd be happy to work on compromise language if we can agree to keep the infobox to factions with a factually established armed presence. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actions of the government, how about actions of the FSA? You think the FSA is a "good guy" here... it's your own personal oppinion. Stop with this nonsense. Assad's government is like any other government in the world. Put it like this, Russia is protecting Syrians against Islamist laws... why we wouldn't observe this in this way? The discussion how guilty is the government will get us nowhere. If one would follow your logic then you could add China, Kongo, Zimbabwe, India, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Sudan, Palestine... they haven't imposed sanctions and are trading with Syria, some are trading arms others do the oragnes... what's the difference? --Wüstenfuchs 13:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Russia is protecting Syrians against Islamist laws"? So you admit Russia is protecting the Syrian government. It should be in the infobox if the other countries that are sending military supplies to Syria are. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous, let's end this soon. Here is a summary of arguments and my counter-arguments:

I hope this helps.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that voting no to a proposed resolution is not equal to a political support. It is just being against the resolution. Some people here think that if your are not blindly following the western policy against a country you are supporting it.

Not wanting to attack or take sanction against a country does not equal support.

I agree we remove Russia... certain users desperatly want to add Russia without any serious argument... if it was about the resolution then it's not Russia only that is involved (the countries that opposed the resoluton were: Belarus, Bolivia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Ecuador, Iran, Nicaragua, Russia, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe), and it's a politicial decision also. --Wüstenfuchs 15:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any serious argument? You ignored my post, you and Daniel now removed Russia even though this discussion is ongoing. Infobox states that Russia is providing military support to Syria, fact that you yourself do not deny. You just say that it is legal, biding treaty between the states. That doesn´t make it any less military support. It is not like we do not have a LOT of sources stating that Russia supports Assad so it is not some kind of OR, POV or whatever, but sourced argument. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison let´s take a look at Vietnam War article where we have China, Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia etc as supporting North Vietnam. Those were all binding, legal contracts that WP countries had with NV, weren´t they? EllsworthSK (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russia more neutral than the West? Pure opinion. Russia's President Putin has blamed the violence on the rebels, while Russia, unlike any Western country, has openly supplied a faction in the Syrian war with weapons and sent military advisers to the country. There is no such thing as "business as usual" when you're dealing with a civil war. Continuing to sell weapons to a faction that is engaged in military action is taking a side; continuing to sell weapons to a government that is killing its people is de facto supporting that government. Personally, I don't think any of these countries should be in the infobox at all except for Iran and maybe Turkey, but this double standard is ridiculous and exposes the pro-Assad bias of certain editors here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in the link funkmonk added from the new york times,http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/world/middleeast/killing-of-rebel-with-qaeda-links-opens-debate-on-syrian-opposition.html?_r=2&ref=middleeast it says 'the potential inclination toward intolerant or sectarian Islamist politics — has deterred the West from more muscular support for the cause of Mr. Assad’s ouster. ' -i know funkmonk added it to kind of crow and push a pro-Assad regime pov but even this sentence throws a light on the level of support 'the West' is delivering - and this contrasts with the Russian position and Putin/Russia attitudes - which were abundantly clear in his latest rant in his most recent interview Sayerslle (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]