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

The map there is more up-to-date and has a few enhancements:

- More cities/towns (108)

- More intuitive colors: red for gov, green for opposition, yellow for kurds

- Can be edited directly from the edit window of this article by anyone (no need for graphing software or uploading to commons)

- Has border posts, military bases, airports in the news & troop movement arrow

- You can hold cursor over location to display name and click to go to location row in table

Tradedia (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep that in your userspace, don't crash the talkpage with that monstrosity. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tradedia, I have to admit, your map does look kinda pretty and colorful. However, I don't really see why the current svg map needs to be replaced. I can add all the features you had in yours easily. Also, the cities are too small to see when the map is not full size.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I can tell you really worked hard on it, but you really should've discussed the proposal with us first. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's got more flashing lights than the city of Las Vegas. I appreciate the effort you put into it, but it's simply far too complicated to be a reasonable alternative for our current maps, which have been specifically designed to be straightforward, easy to read, and not a browser-choking 20000+ bytes in size. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, my inner 13-year-old feels compelled to point out the vaguely.... phallic appearance of the "military base" icon. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it good work tradedia,but i think it would be better to make a map of the territory under rebel control and under government controlAlhanuty (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please no more maps. They are hard to update because lack of sources and they don't give a good picture. For example Hirak, Nawa , Bosra, Deir Hayfa and Salma are listed as government controlled on that map yet they are rebel controlled, and Daara city is contested. Sopher99 (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i am not say about cities,about territories as for example 90 perceent of dier ezzor province is under rebel controlAlhanuty (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was just testing the water with this proposal. I now withdraw the proposal. The map was designed for the “cities” article which focuses on collecting sources for town control at a detailed level. The map was aimed at being a navigation tool for the table/list in that article and reflecting visually the content of it. The concept of that article is that editors go there to put sources they have in the table and get information about different towns. So now, they can update the map at the same time they update the table (all in the edit window). The result should be a constantly up-to-date table & map. I agree that the map is complicated and the icons rather small. It was hard to fit the content of the table (108 towns) without getting something complicated and hard to see. So I think indeed that the map does not fit well in the main civil war article. I will work on improving its visibility for inclusion in the “cities” article. The map will indeed be full size (the article is basically all tables and maps).
Lastly, I want to encourage all of you to use the “cities” article as a one-stop shopping for information related to territory control. It should be a centralized market where “suppliers” bring their sources to deposit in the table, and “demanders” go there to get up-to-date sources to use in making/updating maps or other things… Tradedia (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...of this article is a complete mess. I suggest we remove any "supporters" and stick to those parties that actually has engaged in combat. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that would do is remove Qatar Turkey and S.A. It won't make much of a difference. Sopher99 (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't remove turkey. Since turkey has fired on positions inside Syrian, they are technically engaged in some combat. Jeancey (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to see that different forces like the United States, Al Qaeda, Israel , Turkey, Saudi Arabia are all engaged in one direct goal, destroying the Syrian governement.--Marjonesto (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its also interesting to see different forces like Hezbollah, Iran, Russia, the Al Mahdi army are all engaged in one direct goal, killing the Syrian people. Sopher99 (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Or rather, fighting rabid Salafists that will threaten the entire world if they get hold of Syria. I look forward to 9/11 #2 when I can say "told you so". FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why is israel under "spillover"?? its a known fact israel funds and supports the opposition & also funds terrorists like al Qaeda. Baboon43 (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Israel has fired and hit targets inside syrian over the weekend. It is definitely part of the spill over. Jeancey (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Low-scale border clashes does not make countries combatants unless they engage themselves in war against Syria, which neither Turkey nor Israel has done so far. As for SA and Qatar, none of these countries has sent troops and should thus be removed. Same goes for Iraqi Kurdistan and propably also the PFLP unless direct involvement can be proved. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, there is quite a bit of precedent for including countries that support one side or another. Unless you have an extremely good reason why, in this case, we shouldn't include them, I don't see them being removed at all. Jeancey (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we remove them. With the important exceptions of Iran, Hezbollah and the Mujahideen, this is an internal conflict in Syria and not a regional war as of November 2012. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 14:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are other articles that include supporters in the infobox as well as combatants, see Spanish Civil War (a GA). -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Germany and Italy participated directly, and so did the foreign volunteers. Not sure about Portugal, but the USSR and Mexico should definitely be removed.

That's a whole different case. The Soviets provided pilots and advisors, and the Germans and the Italians sent their respective air forces and troops. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that Iraqi Kurdistan can be removed (not any active part so far), but PFLP-GC did take an active part in Yarmouk fighting on the side of the Syrian Army - a dozen activists of PFLP-GC were killed over past two weeks (probably hundreds took part).Greyshark09 (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well here's some more examples of articles that include weapons suppliers in the infobox: Mozambican War of Independence (a FA),Soviet war in Afghanistan, and Angolan Civil War (a GA). -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case of Angolan civil war, Soviet Union wasn't just delivering weapons but sent intelligence officers, dozens of which got killed through the conflict - it was a significant deployment of logistics and troops not simply "weapon sales".Greyshark09 (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Futuretrillionaire, you can't drag in other articles and expect that to be an argument. We should remove Iraqi Kurdistan, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia from the infobox and stick to the realities and the facts, which is that none of these countries or autonomous regions have intervened with their respective armed forces. That, or let the infobox remain extremely misleading. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it misleading? It clearly says "support", which is different from combatants. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mikrobølgeovn and Greyshark09, there was a heated discussion on this issue a few months ago, which also included an administrator I think, and a fine consensus among a majority was made to list all of the supporters, not directly engaged, on the supporters lists, but to leave Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia in the infobox because their open supplying of weapons and logistics to the rebels has been notable enough to warrant them staying in the infobox. Since than Turkey has also now engaged in direct conflict of sorts on an enough notable and major scale. There are multiple precendents on Wikipedia for listing supporters, this has also been discussed in those previous discussions. Read the previous discussions first please. The infobox is not a mess at all. EkoGraf (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syria crisis: Gulf states recognise Syria opposition This obviously does not reflect the situation on the ground (nor is it particularly surprising that the Sunni-run GCC states would choose to recognize mostly Sunni rebels as a legitimate governing body), but perhaps it should be mentioned in the article nonetheless.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the fact that Sunni's and Kurds make up 85% of Syrians and 95% of willing opposition? You do know that the leader of the SNC is George Sabra is Christian right? Sopher99 (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, did you know Uncle Tom was black? FunkMonk (talk) 23:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's your point? All I was saying is that the move by the GCC isn't surprising, due to Sunni-Shi'ia tensions/rivalry.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SNC goes out of its way to look "diverse" by putting minorities as essentially figurehead leaders. Still by and large Sunni-dominated. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Libya and Tunisia(?) already recognise the opposition a while back as well? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk)

I think you're right because I remember hearing about Libya a long while back. I don't know about Tunisia though.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure, either. I'll try and dig up some material. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the International recognition of the Syrian National Council page, only Libya recognizes it (cited from what appears to be a middle eastern source, and the Washington Post. It doesn't say that Tunisia has recognized it, but it looks like the page has been edited in a while, either.

Actually, come to think of it, I didn't recall seeing that page (the international recognition page) wikilinked anywhere in the this article. I only just came across it by searching. Shouldn't it be linked here somewhere though?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source describing Tunisian recognition. Haven't found much else, though. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody keep in mind that today's article is not about the recognition of the Syrian National Council but about the recognition of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as the legitimate gov't. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware. The two are related, though. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On that note, since the SNC is now part of the NCS (holding 22 out of 60 seats), do we know whether Libyan (and Tunisian?) recognition transfers automatically? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why was russia taken off the side of the syrian government? they are supplying them with weapons...I noticed russia was there a few days ago now its gone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.2.61 (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See this: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Syrian civil war. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Russia has already done enough to be a part of this war. Russia is not only supplying weapons,they are now training troops of Syria to teach them how to use those weapons. Not to mention, Russia has already sent tons of bundles of notes of Russian Ruble. I think they should be given a top priority right now as the real resistance is coming from Russia right now..

[1]

Shah-E-Zaman (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

is it just me or have the kurds been moved between both sides in the last few days? It really seems like a good idea to make a third column for them, after all they aren't fighting for the government or rebels, they are fighting for the representation of the Kurdish people to eventually create a Kurdish state — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.134.74 (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

I know listening to the bbc world service tonight, 20 November, from south-eastern turkey , the journalist saying he'd heard fierce fighting just over the border in Syria Ras al-Ayn, Syria - last week it was being bombed by Assad but today the PKK had been fighting with Syrian anti-Assad forces and that the wounded anti-Assad fighters were treated in Turkey but the PKK wounded could not do this and were treated on the Syrian side of the border. It does seem odd therefore to see any PKK flags on the Opposition side at this time as it's a more muddled picture. a third column might be a good idea really.Sayerslle (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was discussed previously and decided to give it a month or so to see if the kurdish-fsa conflict flares even more. EkoGraf (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last I checked, PKK officially denied any presence in Syria. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Third column needed. Absolutely conflicting reports of who are they backing, they are too pragmatic to choose a side, as always do they are gonna switch sides depending on the conditions they offer to them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Polmas (talk • contribs)

• Support for a third column for the Kurdish forces, I think the problem raised before was one of "undue weight" however it seems obvious we cannot ignore the Kurdish presence any longer, and including them with the Syrian opposition lends "undue weight" to the opposition forces as they themselves are deeply divided and are fighting constantly now with the Kurdish population. Eko: more reports of Kurd-Opposition clashes - [2]. "opposition fighters repeatedly battled Kurdish militias this past week, adding fresh ethnic dimensions to a bloody civil war." The other issue was FutureTrillionaire complaining about "cluttering the infobox" but that is clearly nonsense and hasn't affected any other articles on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDjango (talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Whatever we choose as a solution, the Kurds should certainly not be grouped with the FSA. They've fought more with them than with the Syrian army. FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for the third column. The Kurdish forces had several clashes with the rebels. Those can't be ignored any more. We gave a "month" to see what is going to happen, and today, rebels clashed with the Kurdish forces. If we wait for another month, I bet we'll see another clash/es. --Wüstenfuchs 21:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support third column. In the future, it might even be necessary to add a fourth column for the Islamists if they decide to conclusively break with the Syrian National Coalition. Here's an article about an ongoing battle in which hundreds of Kurds are fighting against rebel Islamists in Hasakeh province: [3] Esn (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 86.160.248.214 (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)-Django[reply]
• Strongly Oppose PKK deny they are in Syria, while the Kurdish Supreme Committee wants independence from the Syrian government and fights against them. Rebels and Kurds share a common enemy. Sopher99 (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, PKK's presence is irrelevant. Secondly, the Kurds and the Syrian government share a common enemy as well. Guess who. See where I'm getting at? FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To make it more explicit, FunkMonk is talking about Turkey. The Kurds (or at least the PYD, the only Kurdish group with a substantial armed presence) have rejected the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces largely because they believe it to be too loyal to Turkey: [4]. Esn (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not talking about Turkey. I'm talking about the FSA. FSA is a common enemy of the Syrian gov and the Kurds. The Syrian gov is a common enemy of the Kurds and the FSA. Everyone in Syria is a "common enemy". FunkMonk (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, 99% of the combat is between Syrian army and rebels, adding a third column is ridiculous. best to use the line segment showing that they are not directly on the same side. I7laseral (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• We've had this discussion already - Not this again. We already had a discussion about this not too long ago: Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 17#Third row for Kurds. The result of the discussion was to keep it on the right side with a separation line unless the Kurds declare open hostilities towards the rebels. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the result was "wait and see what happens". A lot has happened since, basically all Kurd-FSA clashes. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. The Kurds play a relatively minor role in this conflict. Giving a third column just for them is completely undue. We can explore alternative solutions if you want.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving them out entirely would almost make more sense than what we have now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not the third row? It wouldn't make it undue. First reason for that is they have northeastern Syria second, the media are talking about them. Notable media will always report clashes between the FSA/Syrian Army versus PYD units, they even report their views, goals etc. They are highly notable in this conflict. --Wüstenfuchs 01:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are almost as many Kurds in Syria as there are Alawites, so they are not exactly insignificant, and have the potential to play an even larger role in the conflict than they do now. FunkMonk (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point as well. We can't ignore them. They are an important factor for both, the Syrian governemtn and the rebels, which we could saw froum various reports. Also, conflict between the rebels and the PYD formations can't be ignored anymore. --Wüstenfuchs 01:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Kurds are a significant combatant, and are not firmly aligned with either side. One does not sign a ceasefire with those who fight on the same side. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I was the one who originally made this point about the kurds and I am glad to see there is a mature and open discussion about whether to give them a third column. My original points still stand, the kurds aren't on anyone's side other than their own, they've been fighting for independence for the kurdish people and a kurdish state for many years now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.241.2.61 (talk) 13:34, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was discussed before, see: [5] FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that it was discussed before, but that was a month ago. A lot has changed since then and the kurds are taking a more active role in the conflict. The media may not always cover every event that happens regarding the kurds, but this is a very significant time for the kurds and their people, they are basically fighting a separate war for their own independence, if you will. According to the map on this very page they control many of the border areas, I think that is significant enough to warrant their own column, especially since they are on no one's side but their own, and only time can tell what will become of their controlled areas once the war is over.- Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.134.74 (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support On one side we cannot ignore that Kurds are hostile to anyone that enters their areas with weapons. Be it Syrian army (events in Kobane, Shekh Maksoud and others) or rebels (Ras al-Ayn). However KNC is part of National Council. PYD is not but Kurds =/= PYD. Also significant as they are I do not really know if they hold straw to force of rebels or army. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kurds haven't yet gotten around to centralising their military efforts, but are planning on doing so rather soon. As to whether they are as strong as other groups, that's difficult to say. In comparison to the professional Syrian Army or well-trained jihadists like al-Nusra, probably not. But they clearly represent a significant enough force that both rebels and government forces are reluctant to engage them in full-scale combat. Aside from some clashes around Eid and a few other sporadic firefights and shellings, the Kurdish sector of Aleppo has been more or less left alone, as has most of Syrian Kurdistan. Whether or not Kurds can win in battleground combat alone is also not the full story. Look at PKK in Turkey—I don't think that anybody in Syria wants to deal with that kind of guerilla warfare on top of what is already going on. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am following Kurdish conflict rather closely so I do know about that. Also signed agreement has a long way to implementation, this agreement means creation of unified military command, not military unit. There are thousands of Peshmerga waiting on other side of the border which PYD does not want right now in Rojava because they fear it may shift balance of power there. There is also other issue, YPG may not be working with, but is certainly not working against mainstream FSA (this term got really popular in last few days). Their fight was with al-Nusra, we know who these chaps are, and Ghubarat al-Sham. Now this group is rather interesting because is started years ago as Assad-allied jihadists which were involved in transfering foreign fighters to Iraq - http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=4481 - (can´t wikilink it because of the brackets) and went rogue afterwards. Notice that article is 5 years old. Hence why their call for reinforcements was completely ignored by other groups such as al-Farouq (in Tell Abyad) or Tawheed (in Jarablus). Therefore given the strength of YPG, connection of KNC to NC (their participation there, to be exact) and mentioned above I am more inclined to add them to third collum but not completely sure about that. EllsworthSK (talk) 03:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So we have ten supports and three opposes. Is that a consensus or what? FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP is WP:NOTAVOTE. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but Wikipedia does work through consensus. I'd call what we have here a pretty clear consensus. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When referring to the civil war in Syria, the vast majority of sources discuss the conflict between Assad and the opposition. There is mention of Kurds here and there, but they play a minor role. Making a third role just for them is undue and misleading, giving the impression that they play a major role in the conflict. There is already an article about the Kurdish conflict. Maybe we could remove the PYD from the infobox and replace it with a just a redirect to the 2012 Syrian Kurdistan rebellion. However, I suspect that this new standard will require some other minor parties in the infobox to be removed as well. Something similar was done for the Iraq War article.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same problem, where would you place this redirect? FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? It's like a note. It does not indicate which side the Kurds are on. It'll say something like: (For Kurdish involvement in the conflict, see 2012 Syrian Kurdistan rebellion). It really doesn't matter where we put the note. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What matters is that there is overwhelming support for a third row. FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there's no consensus here for a third column. Like I said, I'm willing to accept a redirect in replacement with listing the party. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have a very strange definition of "consensus". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike FunkMonk, I do not define consensus by the number of votes. Nobody has refuted the UNDUE weight argument against the third column proposal.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A party that takes control of thousands of square kilometres of territory, over 350 towns, and a major portion of the largest city in the country, killing and losing scores of fighters in the process is I think a "major" enough combatant for anyone's purposes. Consensus need not be unanimous, and it need not even be airtight. Notably, this consensus includes bipartisan support from those variously described as "regime cheerleaders" and "opposition activists". You may count yourself as a dissenter here, but that does not entitle you to filibuster the result. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're interpretation seems like OR. Find me a source that says that the Kurds are a major party in the conflict. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm not the only "dissenter". I think you've forgot about EkoGraf, Spoher and 17laseral. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to take OR-thodoxy to that extent, then: [6] [7].

Eko voiced no opinion on the matter; he merely stated that the last discussion ended in "wait a month". It's been a month. If Sopher and I7laseral wish to discuss further, I invite them to do so. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article for the Kurdish conflict: 2012 Syrian Kurdistan conflict, which is separate from the main conflict between Assad and the FSA. The main article is about the main conflict. Adding a third column in this article just for the Kurds is definitely undue, considering the minor role they play, AND considering that the Kurds article already contains a 3 column infobox, so there's no need for 3 column infobox here. I don't like the current format either, which is why I proposed a redirect as a compromise. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you constantly claim it's undue? It's not, especially after considering the attention the PYD's fighters have recieved. --Wüstenfuchs 18:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you constantly claim it's not undue? It is, especially after considering the lack of attention the PYD's fighters have recieved. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is this, we play kids now? The Washington Post, the Guardian, Hurriyet, etc... --Wüstenfuchs 18:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry-picking a few incidents of Rebel-Kurd clashes does not say that the Kurds play a major role in the main war between Assad and the FSA. There is already an article for Kurds with its own 3 column infobox.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that the conflicts are "separate" is complete and utter OR on your part, directly contradicted by the sources. See Foxy's Washington Post article: "Clashes between Arab rebels and Kurdish militants in northeastern Syria are bringing additional complexities to the already murky front lines in the country's civil war." ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OR? See this: [8]-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Within" means "inside of" (in this case as in "a constitutive part of"), not "separate from". So it's a "civil war part of a civil war", not a "civil war separate from a civil war". That source is actually a pretty strong support for the third column. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the main civil war (which is what this article should be about) is between Assad and opposition forces. The "civil war within a civil war" is a more complicated matter that ideally should be explained in the Kurdish conflict article. This is why I support adding a note/redirect in this article's infobox that will take the reader to the Kurdish involvement article. The Kurds play an important role in the "sub-civil war" but not the "main civil war". Again, I recommend taking a look at the Iraq War infobox. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a separate conflict, unlike the civil war in Iraq. All sources that I have encountered treat it as part of this war, if a small part. Slovenia cleared Yugoslav forces out of its territory in ten days, losing less than 20 soldiers, but they still make it into the Yugoslav Wars infobox. The Central Powers suffered a tiny fraction of the massive casualties of the Russian Civil War and exited the fight years before it ended, but still get themselves a third column. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LIke 17laseral said, the vast majority of the fighting is between Assad's forces and the FSA. Adding third column just for the Kurds is ridiculous.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to waste my day arguing about this. I've said why I think a third column for the Kurds is undue and inappropriate for this article, and I've even offered a compromise. I'm not going to say anymore. You can reply to this if you want. But I won't respond. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comments and before i put my 5 cents, can i ask you what are WP:RS saying about this? any source on belligerents by a good media report/analysis?Greyshark09 (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be undue if we didn't actually have frequent clashes between the FSA and the Kurds. But we do. FunkMonk (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, and only Futuretrillionaire is opposing this... I think it's time we made a thid columne in the infobox. --Wüstenfuchs 23:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually many people are opposing it, and a dozen people is a very small pool. I support adding the Kurds as a note. Sopher99 (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Currenty its 9:2... so... 11 people is well enough. Moreover, Future's arguments are not so strong, I'd say. He claims that Kurds are not important to the conflict, and as I got it, he would even go with expelling them from the infobox. I think he would keep Iranians and others, which would be preaty ironic. --Wüstenfuchs 23:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove Kurds from infobox, but under the "ongoing" I would put Kurds establish autonomy. Sopher99 (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a very interesting idea, placing a summary of Kurdish involvement under the "Ongoing" rather than in the belligerents section. This would eliminate the need for a 3rd column. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give it another month. If the Kurds become inactive, we could consider removing them. Right now, it doesn't cut it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give it a year? What about that. Definetly not. So far, they proved to be a significant combatant, and this article should show the current situation, which is as it is. Second, why to be a hypocrite? Iranians are relevant factor and Kurds aren't, what are we talking about? This is laughable. --Wüstenfuchs 02:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was never a strong supporter of including Iran and Hezbollah and the other even smaller groups. We can remove them for the sake of neutrality. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, we could remove all foreign parties in the infobox and change the notes to "(For foreign support, see here)" -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^This. Sopher99 (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is what we can not do. We had discussion about this, and I wouldn't like to repeat this. You can see the archive. Your main argument is that they are not relevant in the Syrian civil war, however, reports from the relevan media show otherwise... I can't see how your argument is valid, explain this to me if you could. --Wüstenfuchs 04:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "discussion is not over", but we have ten in support against two or three. That is overwhelming consensus, so you better start arguing in favour of two rows, instead of reverting the third, Sopher. Your arguments so far are simply too weak. FunkMonk (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its not overwhelming consensus. The 47 to 29 vote to include iran and alqaeda in the infobox is consensus. The small pool of 13 with half of them being editors who don't even edit this page tells us nothing. especially because they did not address the problem of undue weight that was brought up later. Sopher99 (talk) 15:36, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already argued this before and stated my reasons dozens of times. So I will just simply say, a third column is not needed, the way the infobox is now is all right. EkoGraf (talk) 15:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The~issue of "undue weight" has been discussed from the beginning. The Kurds are a fighting force on their own, who are engaging in clashes wit the FSA on an almost daily basis. It is certainly "due". FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The vast vast majority of the fighting in this conflict is between the FSA and Assad. When the news media discuss the civil war in Syria, they rarely even mention the Kurds. Also, Sopher's brought up a good point. Many of the people who supported a third column rarely edit this article.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Shia Mahdi army was also in conflict with Sunni insurgents in the Iraq war but we didn't give them a separate column Funky. They were both in the same column but it was noted that occasional conflict between the two also erupted. EkoGraf (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Kurds are often mentioned in the news, what are you talking about? Where do you get your news? And the Iraq war is irrelevant, Sunnis and Shias only started duking it out for real after the US had practically pulled out and left them alone, and it became it's own sub-conflict. And that's why we have Civil war in Iraq, which has three columns, by the way. The Syrian case is a kind of hybrid between that, the Lebanese civil war and the Algerian civil war. Not comparable to any invasion war lead by a western country. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Father Funk (my, how strangely these lines are drawn). All this talk of "simplifying" is pointless. Parsimony in infoboxes is only a goal insofar as it does not obscure the reality of the situation on the ground—I encourage everyone to review the infoboxes at Yugoslav Wars and Russian Civil War. After a point, less is not more; less is simply less. Whereas there is a case for not including certain marginal noncombatants, I can see absolutely no good reason to omit a notable belligerent party outright. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are making false assumptions. Nobody has said they want to "omit a notable belligerent party outright". I suggested we replace Kurds listing with a note that will redirect the reader to the main Kurds conflict article. This is far from omitting. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnis and Shias only started duking it out for real after the US had practically pulled out and left them alone??? Are you even aware that sectarian death squads were rampaging throughout 2005, 2006 and 2007 at the height of the war while the US was still there and in the thick of it? The Sunni insurgents and the Mahdy army were killing eachother on a regular basis while at the same time they were fighting the Americans. In any case, I support Future's proposal. EkoGraf (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the two who voted against a third row would then want to remove the Kurds entirely as a last resort, but it still doesn't work. As for Iraq, again, the civil war is separate from the US war on all of Iraq. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I really don't see how removing the Kurds is any sort of "compromise". The dissenters think that Kurds are unimportant in the conflict, whereas everyone else sees them as important. I don't see how removing them outright balances the concerns of both parties—if anything, it is a more radical "dissenter" position that is even less palatable to the rest of us.

For the time being, I've put a second divider line between the Kurds and everyone else in the second column to show more separation between them. Kind of a kludge, but I hope it will do. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ingenious move Lothar, that could serve as a temporary solution. --Wüstenfuchs 21:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't understand which part of my support I ment to Future's proposition. I am not advocating removing the Kurds from the infobox. What I am in support of is that there should be a note in the infobox which in 3-4 words points to their occasional conflict with the other rebels and a link to the main article on the Kurdish campaign. EkoGraf (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's far more than just occasional. They're fighting the FSA more than they've ever fought the Syrian army, does that mean they should be moved to their side? FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Both Ghubarat al-Sham and Nusra are not FSA, nor they do call themselves such and like to distance themselves from them. Ghubarat started as Assad takfiris dating back to Iraq war and were his honchos in Aleppo, recruiting jihadists to fight in Iraq under auspice of this fighter against terrorism. I linked it above. Yet Kurds (KNC and PYD both) call for downfall of Assad, refer to this no other than revolution and are hoisting oppo flags. Yekiti has even their own fighters in Salahedin brigade of FSA, Syrian Peshmerga which is being trained in Iraq is made of Kurdish defectors (under auspice of Barzani who has his own "issues" with Salih Muslim) and when Ghubarat and Nusra called for reinforcements from Jarablus and Tell Abyad Farouq and Tawheed sent zero, none, nada fighters even though most of them are having basically vacation in those areas. Kurdi al-Maliki even slammed those groups and called them shameful while other groups which participated in first fight against Syrian government left the town because they saw no point in fighting Kurds. And they were right as that was retarded. Also you are forgetting that those towns (including al-Malikiyah where YPG celebrated removal of security forces by shashing Hafez statues and Bashar portraits) were taken from government. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so the Kurds are effectively removed from the infobox. I fail to see how that's any sort of compromise. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never said to remove them from the infobox, just to make a note of their conflict with the FSA and the link. EkoGraf (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, FT's solution is to remove them from the infobox and replace them with a short note of the conflict. So you have your own proposal is what you are saying? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was supporting his proposal of a note of the conflict, but not the removal of the Kurds from the infobox. What I was proposing is the example of the template we have at the Iraq war infobox, and that is why I mentioned that war. Because there you have a note in the box that says For fighting between insurgent groups, see Civil war in Iraq. I am proposing to add an asterix to the Kurds which says For fighting between the PYD and other rebel groups, see 2012 Syrian Kurdistan conflict. I think actually this was already done by someone before, but somebody else removed the asterix/note. EkoGraf (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speaking of Kurds, I've split information from 2012 Syrian Kurdistan conflict regarding Ras al-Ayn into Battle of Ras al-Ayn. I encourage you all to improve it, as it's kind of a Frankenstein job from the original—particularly Eko with his preternatural knack for calculating casualties. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. :D EkoGraf (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think we have way too many articles I agree with this. This is fist full-scale confrontation between Kurds and rebel groups (Aleppo were just clashes which ended after few days in truce where both sides agreed to work against government). Per SNOW it may grow in something larger (or may not but given how Turks are supporting groups and Arab tribes with strong opposition to Kurds - Ghubarat and Nusra came there from Turkish side of border after all - because they see them as arm of PKK it looks likely. Hasaka and Qamishlo will likely result in another shitstorm) so for now let´s keep it that way. But if it will not I will propose merger with main. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another good reason for a third row. FunkMonk (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no magic number of articles that determines "too many". If a conflict, battle, or skirmish is sufficiently covered by a number of reliable sources, there is no reason why it should not be made into an article. Ras al-Ayn/Serekaniye has already gotten a lot of coverage, and notability is not temporary. WP:SNOW is for talkpage discussions, not articles. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the FSA-Kurd clashes are being systematically downplayed around here. We have a long list of stub articles about minor clashes between rebels and the army where hardly anyone died (why do these[9][10][11] need articles?), so this one should be a no brainer. FunkMonk (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it fades under pressure of hundreds of thousands articles about the war at all. Notability does not depends on popularity but rather whether it is worthy of notice. And many are not - for example battle of Taftanaz, Anadan checkpoint, having separate articles for 3 Rastan "battles" etc. They can be as easily incorporated into the main without actual invention of battles (since many were just clashes). Than we have articles which are notable but are basically opposite of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE (*cought* Aleppo *cought*). This was case in Libya where we have such irrelevant cases as Ghadames raid or Ra's Lanuf raid. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these two only listed as "supporters" when they have thousands of troops engaged in active combat in Syria? Shouldn't this make them direct belligerents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.14.28 (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do they have "thousands of troops" in Syria? FunkMonk (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From clearer heads: "A sober assessment of the claims repeated by the Syrian opposition regarding Hizb Allah’s activities in Syria finds that many tend to be outlandish and exaggerated. Many of these accounts appear crafted to achieve broader political goals aimed at undermining Hizb Allah’s reputation and further weakening Syria. This tone of reporting also tends to misrepresent the true nature of Hizb Allah’s role in the Syrian crisis." http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/hizb-allahs-role-in-the-syrian-uprising FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed -Some troll added that "supported by" heading again despite the very clear message not to. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To potentially be added pending more news reports, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/11/29/web-monitor-100-percent-of-syrias-internet-just-shut-down/?hpid=z2. Kmusser (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

a better source already. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20546302 Kmusser (talk) 17:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the article: http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/11/29/syria-opposition-using-children-conflict FunkMonk (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you plan to do with this? This is not a forum. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a forum; for discussion about how to improve the article. I'm posting it here to get views on how it could be implemented, obviously. Why didn't you complain about the section immediately above this one? FunkMonk (talk) 21:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank Father Funk for sparing us the sermon this time around.

It seems that the "children" fighting for the FSA are doing so voluntarily, and that most of them fall better into the "teenager" category than the "child" category. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 38 gives 15 as the absolute minimum age. This could be included under "Human rights violations", though the circumstances would have to be made explicit. When you say "child soldier", this conjures up images of sickly African 9-year-olds holding Kalashnikovs 3/4 the size of their bodies after being forcibly impressed into service. The information provided by HRW shows a different story. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article says 14, not 15. As for sickly Africans, I'm not sure where they should get those from. Then again, the FSA is composed of all sorts of exotic ethnicities from all over the world, so why not. FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Iranian society is not far off from being a backwards voodoo boondocks, maybe the FSA should just borrow the children of the Iranian revolutionary guards Iran keeps sending. Sopher99 (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you're stuck in the 1980s. The Iran-Iraq war is over, Iran only uses elite troops these days. FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 14 year olds were interviewed and that would be in violation of the convention, but much of the article talks of 15-17 year olds. And I was talking more of the LRA, but thanks for playing. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I blame Assad! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2169216/Terror-boy-soldier-Kalashnikov-toting-child-cries-witnesses-horror-Syrias-bloody-civil-war.html The FSA clearly has no other choice. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I blame the FSA! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2086982/Syrian-soldier-decapitated-seven-month-old-boy-mother-finding-suspected-rebel-home.html Assad soldiers clearly have no other choice. Sopher99 (talk) 22:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Through a Skype interview, eyewitnesses based in Canada subsequently claimed they had observed the murderous (Iranian-backed) dictator Bashar "Neo Hitler" Assad arriving at the scene, where he personally spit roasted (and raped) the remains of the baby. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well luckily for you he won't be exposed anymore now that the internet is shut down, so rest easy. Sopher99 (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sheet, seems like I'll have to revert myself then. I hope Maher al-Assad (isn't he a cyborg these days?) won't feed me to the Shabiha for spilling the beans. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we need to make mention of child soldiers in Syria. I have a few "credible" links that are not SANA or some Baathist website. Here is one from Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/syrian-child-soldiers-rebels_n_2210427.html Here is one from Yahoo: http://news.yahoo.com/america-syria-state-child-soldiering-2012-201731787.html One from the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2169216/Terror-boy-soldier-Kalashnikov-toting-child-cries-witnesses-horror-Syrias-bloody-civil-war.html One from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/26/us-syria-un-idUSBRE82P0W220120326

Take your pick, but please keep this article neutral, for the integrity of Wikipedia's mandate. We must inform the reader of all aspects of this conflict, and not be concerned as to how it makes either the government or the opposition look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There's now a video on Youtube showing the FSA letting a child behead a bound prisoner. That's perhaps the most fucked up video to come out of this conflict, will probably be ignored by Western/Gulf media. FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure this isn't the most fucked up video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTAMspXURqM&bpctr=1355170327 ? Or How about this one ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTAMspXURqM&bpctr=1355170441

will probably be ignored by Western/Gulf media. Sopher99 (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm pretty sure. That video (both links show the same clip) could be from any conflict in the world, whereas the one with the child executioner is unprecedented. Nice try, though. And yes, the Gulf/Westen media is all over that stuff like vultures. Perhaps you don't follow the news? FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heres the clip I wanted to show you anyway. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7_XZYmSDxg "unprecdented" and "any conflict in the world" It just so happens that I don't see any flags or any sign of FSA in that execution of Alawite officers. It could be from "any conflict in the world" as you like to say. Sopher99 (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh, no, it couldn't. First, you can hear them speak. Second, there are no current intra-Arab conflicts in the Arab world where Islamists use child soldiers and behead prisoners. Furthermore, no one aid he is an Alawite. The FSA beheads anyone who doesn't support them, including fellow Sunnis. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch/?v=dE7luGRe9Ag Actually he took it from a video that was removed last night, which said they were alawite officers responsible for houla. And in both video I showed you there is speaking. Besides, what about Yemen, Iraq, Algeria? I am pretty sure people have children too there. Its not like I doubt the authenticity of the video, I am just concerned about you doubting everything rebel oriented. This video is rebel oriented too you know, who do you think took the video? Sopher99 (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. I'm not doubting the veracity of those videos you posted. I'm just saying they're hardly out of the ordinary for what happens in all wars. Unlike a child beheading a man. Hence "most fucked up video from Syria yet". FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, I thought you were just being sensational, but the link is here (warning graphic content). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyMF8qtMNII We NEED to mention this on the article, unfortunately I cannot edit because it is locked, if somebody can go about telling me how to edit, I will add this section about the rebels employing child soldiers into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While it is quite disturbing (but still not the worst I've seen on the fucked up realm of the internet), the video is not WP:RS and so not fit for inclusion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we'll see a Syrian "Mr. Hands" just yet. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look here, fast forward to 1:08 the kid in green cannot be more than 10 years old. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXDf0FbRxh4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your analysis, but that's not for us to include. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So when is it okay to include, when it implicates the Syrian government? What about the video of these rebels gassing the rabbits? It's no wonder Wikipedia isn't scholarly, because it's so damn biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 18:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned earlier, we'll have to wait until it is reported by a reliable source, Youtube itself is not a reliable source. But the pro-FSA slant in West and Gulf media might prevent this. As for the fact that there are child soldiers in the FSA, that's widely reported, so can be added already. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How adding some random Canadian's personal analysis of a grainy Youtube video is somehow "scholarly" is beyond me. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We've moved on from the grainy videos Lothar, we are now talking about these articles. There are enough of them from "credible" websites to enlist the notion on this page, that the employment of child soldiers by the rebels is a prominent incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And badabing, Youtube (Google) predictably deleted the video, on grounds that for some reason do not apply to videos that are against the Syrian government. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• On the other hand, the incident has now reached the news, and we have reliable sources reporting on it, which means we can add it to Wikipedia: http://news.yahoo.com/syrias-rebels-violent-assad-160219596.html That kid sure doesn't look 15, hardly 12. FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta love that pro-FSA Western/Gulf media ignoring anything bad for rebel PR. Youtube removes these things for the same reason you can't find any other beheading (Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, etc.) on the site. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, explains Sopher's human toast there. FunkMonk (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blood and dismemberment tend to rank higher on the no-scale than carbonised corpses. But honestly, if you've spent wasted any significant amount of time there, you'll know that Youtube has some of the laziest oversight practices on the (mainstream) web. There's really no grand conspiracy afoot; you can take the foil off your head now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone here realizes that the people who run youtube video checks and such are just a couple of hundred Californian middle class guys working at the googleplex, right. Each single member deals with dozens if now hundreds of videos an hour, ranging from Rihanna to Siamese cats. There is no conspiracy. Sopher99 (talk) 04:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay great! I've made mention in the article that there has been an instance of rebels employing children to behead civilians who support the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.81.218 (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere in the article: http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/01/world/meast/syria-hama-neighborhood/index.html Sopher99 (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you plan to do with this? This is not a forum. See, folks. Even Wikipedia can be fun. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a forum; for discussion about how to improve the article. He's posting it here to get views on how it could be implemented, obviously. Why didn't you complain about the section immediately above this one? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, my fellow Wikipedians! Please be so kind to add it to the article, so every possible viewpoint can be represented! And don't you forget them ref-tags and proper citation formatting! Goochy goo! FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whut, no one's taking the bait on this one? I wonder why. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMG. I left for a few hours this is what happens? What did I say? This is not forum. As for the demolition of homes, I agree it should be added to the article because Assed is using this as a war tactic to punish neighborhoods who support the rebels. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually put that in the talk page as a tease because the way Funkmonk puts these things here its like hes running a blog. Just put whatever Reliable Source you think should go into the article and if its not suitable it can be relocated or reverted. I don't see why these things have to be gloated as news banners. Sopher99 (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I barely post here once a week, but I'm running a blog? Congratulations with trying to emulate my apparently tremendous impact. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how all the images showing Syrian army fighting/helping disappeared and everything that left are images of "heroic" rebels. Wikipedia has to be neutral encyclopedia. This article needs more footage of Syrian army and also some critique of rebels. Also it would be nice to post some of Syrian Goverment propaganda claims not just pro rebel propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.188.17 (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk deleted those images from Commons because he claims they were copyright violations. Free images of Assad supporters and the Syrian military are very hard to find. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A "claim" which was confirmed by other Commons admins. Chill. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Father Funk is correct here; the images were pretty clear copyvios. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, just because we can't find free images of the Syrian army does not mean that we are being biased. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere does it say that all images must be free, images may be fair use as well (even if there has been a push in the past few years to heavily discourage fair use in Wikipedia). I think that NPOV is a more important principle than is a preference for free vs. non-free images. It's more important for this article to be balanced than it is to avoid using copyrighted images under fair use rules. Esn (talk) 08:01, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the images were uploaded at Commons, so no, they couldn't have been kept. Commons prohibits all non-free media. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're responding to something I never said. I'm not talking about the commons, I'm talking about this particular article. If the lack of free images prevents this article from being balanced, the solution is to use non-free images under fair use licenses. Esn (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually I'm addressing what you said exactly. Let me lay it out for you, since you seem to be having difficulty understanding: the images were uploaded at Commons. Commons does not tolerate fair use under any circumstances. The images were found to be in direct violation of Commons policy and deleted. All transclusions here were lost. Please stop acting like it's all our fault that this article doesn't have enough balanced pictures. If it really bothers you that much, you can upload them here on Wikipedia yourself. Be WP:BOLD. Live a little. And quit the heckling. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "Nowhere does it say that all images must be free", I was referring to the English Wikipedia rather than the Wikipedia Commons. I can see how that wasn`t very clear. Anyway, I just commented to support the original poster, I am not going to put in the pictures myself (I don`t follow this closely enough to do a good job of it, and it`s been a really long time since I`ve tried to upload a fair use image; I remember the process being pretty difficult). Esn (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? Neutrality is not a good fair use rationale. Sorry, but we just can't add non-free images on this article because it's not absolutely necessary. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is one of Wikipedia's three core policies. I didn't realize that the preference for avoiding fair use images takes priority over that now, but then I've been out of the loop for the last few years. As it is now, both pro- and anti-Assad demonstrations are well-represented in the images, but there is a conspicuous absence of any images of troops from the Syrian army, while the FSA and PYD are represented. Esn (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is, there just aren't that many images of the Syrian Army out there, and the ones that are, aren't able to be used due to copyright issues. If you can find some high quality images of the Syrian Army, upload them, but that's the main reason why there aren't any in the article. Jeancey (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, this article doesn't exactly need more images. If people want balance, then remove images instead of adding them. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone either remove, rephrase, or move the sentence "Minority Kurds have also protested and complained.[83]" from the subheading "Background - Religion"? It is inserted apropos of nothing in a paragraph dealing with religious discontent and has the effect of suggesting that the (multi-faith but predominantly Sunni) Kurds represent a distinct religion or that their protests (can we lose the somewhat pejorative and in any case redundant 'complaints'?)are somehow religious in nature. Many general readers are already sufficiently confused about the ethnic and religious distinctions in Syria and do not need further confusion between ethnicity and religion.The section could also be re-named "Demographics" and direct to the "Demographics of Syria" page which is somewhat more general in scope.

I am also troubled that throughout the article the Assad regime is (rightly) characterized as predominantly Alawite but no mention is made of the almost exclusively Sunni Arab character of the rebels. Statements like "Delegates to the leadership council are to include women and representatives of religious and ethnic minorities, including Awalites." from the subheading "Non-state Actors - Syrian National Council" are misleading, since minorities (especially Alawites) represent a vanishingly small percentage of the rebels, and are rare even among the most inclusive, progressive, and Western backed factions. This inclusiveness is a goal, not a reality, and it is by no means shared by all of the anti-regime groups operating in Syria.

Because the Sunni Arabs are an objectively oppressed majority in a state whose regime is regarded with hostility by many in America and the EU, our media, leaders, and 'gut reaction' tends to support (and idealize) the rebels. As an English language site whose editors are often from "Western" countries, it is especially important for us to provide an NPOV perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.167.23 (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partly done -I've changed the heading and noted that the Kurds are an ethnic minority. However, I'm not sure where to add the Sunni rebels info, maybe the "Free Syrian Army" section? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with all the IP said above. There are some token minorities in the secular parts of the opposition, but hardly among the rebels. On the other hand, there are probably more Sunnis than Alawites on the government side. FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why Lihaas removed that section, but there should of course be some mention of it. But what we have is simply way too much, based on published speculation and rumours. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with your accomodation to mention it (BOTH sides have mentioned the issue), but as you said its way too prominent based purely on media sensnationalism. I was thinking mentioning the announcements, et al in the time line. Any ideas?(Lihaas (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

wat abt ythis if evil terrosits gruops have chmeical weapopns too then can we includee them??? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why we should add the "evil terrorist groups" per the comment below.

See this, in response to UNDUE additions of media sensationalist. Then so much for the claims otherwise states with israel's view here.(Lihaas (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

espaking of iseral it seemes that it have sent the speclia froce to the syria to trak chmeicals wepaons i wonder if this foreign intrevene was confrmde for sensnationalism????? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what is the issue here. Like in any ongoing event, some sections become bloated and needs to be summarized or if notable enough moved to another article. As such 'Lihaas' edit [12] removing the whole section of sourced material is wrong, while 'The Proffesor' edit [13] seems like a step in the right direction. For this discussion to remain constructive I suggest to avoid statements like "too much" and address specifics, Thanks.--Mor2 (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is undue weight, as stated several times. FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If Iran/Hezbollah are so prominent in the infobox as combatants then where is all the implicit and explicit western support? Not to mention the terrorists regimes of turkey, qatar and saudi? Theres been plenty of rhetorical and other moves (not to mention whats covert and in the media)(Lihaas (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

ep[lesae see WP:Requests for mediation/Syrian civil war thx Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What in God's name are you talking about. We do include Turkey Qatar and Saudi Arabia in support. Rhetorical support does not count, the only support that counts is arming a faction for free. Sopher99 (talk)

What in god's name are you talk about? There is no financial and other aid and recognition as the "sole representative". Thats mre than a clear indication of support.(Lihaas (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

News of the letters to the United Nations also follows a CNN report that the United States and some European allies are using defense contractors to train Syrian rebels on how to secure chemical weapons stockpiles in Syria. The report, which cites a senior U.S. official and several senior diplomats, said the training is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, and involves how to monitor and secure stockpiles and handle weapons sites and materials, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the issue. Some of the contractors are in Syria working with the rebels to monitor some of the sites, one of the officials said. The nationality of the trainers was not disclosed, though the officials cautioned against assuming all are American.(Lihaas (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

First thing is that this does not count as military support, as they are not training rebels to fight anyone. The second thing is that the countries have not been disclosed. Sopher99 (talk) 16:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further more the Strength section list 15,000 Iranian soldiers and 590 fatalities. --Mor2 (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what does "train Syrian rebels " mean then? thats got nothing to do with the conflict?? More so since its mentioned on the page (see abve )

Furhter do NOT refactor other commetns or you will be blocked.(Lihaas (talk) 19:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

The difference between Combatants and Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war. --Mor2 (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a sub-section for the Mujahideen under non-state parties in the conflict? David O. Johnson (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a good idea, given their prominence. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope that goes into foreign involvement. Sopher99 (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are also local Mujahideens, so they should be mentioned in both sections. --Polmas (talk) 11:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should I put a mujahideen subsection under Foreign reaction and involvement then? David O. Johnson (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Opposition" is imo a very strange name to use for a war faction. Naturally, if there's a war on, both sides are "opposed" to each-other. If it is intended in the sense of a political "opposition", it is inaccurate and misleading - as this an armed conflict, not a conflict merely within the Syrian political structure. The difference is nothing less than legality: political "opposition" is legal, whereas full-on military rebellion is illegal treason (in Syria just as in every country around the world).

In short, the term has euphemistic implications and smacks of strong pro-FSA bias. I propose utilizing the redirect "Syrian rebels" for the infobox, which is really perfectly accurate given the situation. -- Director (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you see - all three parties on the right hand side are rebels. Only 1 section is opposition. Furthermore the National Coalition is legitimate opposition political party.

You should take a good look at what we did here. Sopher99 (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_civil_war

Obviously we're discussing the propriety of applying the term to the first group. Yes, there are political parties that back the rebels, that's not in question - see above. Wikipedia is not a source.

Think about it. There are sure to be political parties in Syria that do not have a part in the government, but did not join the rebel coalition - and thus also constitute "the opposition". A fact which adds another highly biased and misleading aspect to the current term: the implication that the entire Syrian political opposition has rebelled against the government. That's the active implication; the passive implication (by omission) is simply that the rebels aren't "rebels" (see above). -- Director (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first part. Yes Every single opposition party, ranging from the Syrian National Council to the LCC to the Damascus Declaration to the SRGC to the National Coordination for Democracy joined the Syrian National Coalition. Second of all just about every civil war article Does not list one the sides as Rebels. For example this Wikipedia:Good article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Civil_War. This is an article recommended by the wikipedia guidelines to follow its example. Sopher99 (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should further make note that we are using Bullet points. We are not saying that they are the Only opposition ( even though they are) we are listing main combatants of the Syrian opposition. Sopher99 (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your definition of "political opposition" differs than mine. Simply because a political party does not go into military revolt does not mean it isn't part of the political opposition. I'm sure there are parties other than the ruling Ba'ath Party that are not part of the rebel coalition. But this is a minor point, my primary concerns are outlined in the first post. Rebel war factions are not equivalent to "political opposition", and presenting them as such is misleading and biased in more than one way. Palestinian militias?

Yes, usually a civil war faction is designated in some way (such as "Syrian National Coalition"), but here we're using a generic umbrella term to describe a whole bunch of such factions. And the current one seems slanted in several aspects. If we're to follow the example, a solution would be to remove the umbrella term. If the Free Syrian Army, Syrian Liberation Army, and Palestinian militias are three distinct factions fighting on the same side - they should simply be listed as such. Sans the "Syrian opposition" up top. -- Director (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, by my reading the Kurdish faction constitutes a third faction in the conflict. -- Director (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am Okay with the changes you just made. Discussion over. The only thing is that I am going to re-add the National Coalition as a subset of the FSA, as the FSA supports them as the transitional government. Sopher99 (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So long as we're talking about "euphemising", I've reverted the bit where Syrian government was redirected to "Syria". This is essentially directly implying that the rebels are not "true" Syrians, which to me is far more POV than simply using the term "opposition".

Since we use the government (a political entity) as the party #1, it follows that we should follow a similar structure for party #2. The political council is not a subgroup of the FSA—if anything, it's the other way around. If we are only using armed groups as infobox parties (a ridiculous proposition to begin with), then we should remove "Syrian government" and just use "Syrian Armed Forces".

FWIW, I (and most others) agree that the Kurds should indeed form a third party, but several individuals filibustered a recent discussion on it, so I threw in the double-line as a temporary fix. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sopher, no, the Kurds are not "rebels". FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from a legal perspective, the Syrian government is the "true Syria". A civil war is now on and if (when) the rebels win - they'll be the "true Syria". Nobody likes oppressive dictatorships and the media certainly have been far from impartial on this conflict, but we should keep a distance. From a strictly objective perspective, the Syrian government represents Syria as a country, whereas the rebels are an (illegal) insurgency within that country. As far as international law is concerned the Syrian government is perfectly legal in representing Syria, and should not be referred to differently depending on its popularity and subjective perception.

In a civil war, when the media support the government - they call its troops "(Syrian) security forces", and the rebels "(Islamist) insurgents" or perhaps "terrorists". If its the other way around, then the government is a "regime", and the rebels are "opposition forces" or even "freedom fighters", etc. Imo we should rise above this by way of strict, impartial legalism. That's my approach in the Balkans articles anyway.

Re Kurds. From what I can see above, there's clear consensus to have the Kurds in a third column. Am I missing something? -- Director (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At Russian Civil War, the legal provisional government is not known as "Russia", though the Bolsheviks were insurgents as any others. At Greek Civil War, the Kingdom of Greece is not called simply "Greece". Chinese Civil War has RoC instead of "China". The standard, as far as I can tell, is never to use a simple short name (which always carries broader nationalistic implications) for a same-country governmental side in a civil conflict. Either we use "Syrian Arab Republic", which carries the proper political connotations of the Assad government, or simply "Syrian government". There's also the fact that the opposition has been legally recognised in some quarters as the "sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people".

You'll find no resistance from me on the matter of the PYD. I'm not sure why it's not a third column myself. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree that "Syrian government" is probably the best formulation, I just think it should simply link to Syria (just as "Syrian Arab Republic" did), not the actual Syrian government. -- Director (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing that AQI should be added to the "supported by" section under the Mujahideen and Al Nusra Front belligerents within the "opposition" column of the info box as a good many organisations including now Washington has listed Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist group; largely comprised of insurgents from Iraq as well as the larger al-Qaeda network. According to the US state department Jabhat al-Nusra front are effectively a front for al-Qaeda and former AQII operatives make up the majority of fighters in al-Nusra. MrDjango (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Django[reply]

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/11/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=56045 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=isGI_J_eTBg — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDjango (talk • contribs) 18:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already had this discussion. All Alqaeda in Iraq has joined Al nusra. Al nusra is in the Muujahideen section. Sopher99 (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know al-Nusra are in the Mujahideen section, I'm requesting Al-Qaeda in Iraq to be included also, as a supporter, as they are funneling weapons and insurgents into Syria to fight alongside and within the al-Nusra Front.

MrDjango (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Django[reply]

I'll put them in as a supporter in the Muduhideen section. Fair enough? Sopher99 (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is agreeable MrDjango (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Django[reply]

If they've "joined", then they should be under belligerents, not supporters. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They stopped fighting under the banner of alqaeda, they are officially loyal to al nusra now. Sopher99 (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we can't place them in belligerents realistically, as they are operating under the al-Nusra front command. However AQI does supply large numbers of fighters and arms, so the supporter section is the correct place. MrDjango (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Django[reply]

Also, who changed the palestinian militia entry in the "opposition" column?!! The current wording is highly inaccurate and gives the impression that the general Palestinian population supports the FSA and that Palestinian militias only fight on the side of the opposition, which is incorrect and not NPOV at all. I'm especially unhappy with the Palestinian flag being included, as this is linking the Palestinian militias on the ground (those who do fight on the opposition side) to the greater Palestinian authority and occupied territories, where there is no real link to be made here. Come on Sopher, I thought we agreed on the text "several Palestinian militias", even though it became clear that there is only one such militia called "Storm Brigade" which I gave evidence to in the talk page. In fact this "Storm Brigade" is part of the FSA's command structure (created to influence Palestinian neighborhoods in the Damascus province), so shouldn't really be considered a seperate organisation at all!. I strongly suggest we give the Palestinian brigade it's proper name and list it as a brigade under the FSA (and take off the flag for God's sake. MrDjango (talk) 20:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Django[reply]

" International organizations have accused the government and Shabiha of severe human rights violations.[69] Anti-government armed rebels have been accused of human rights abuses as well.[70] The majority of abuses have, however, been committed by the Syrian government's forces.[71]"

It would sound more NPOV if verb use was consistent, as in:

"International organizations have accused the government and Shabiha of severe human rights violations.[69] Syrian government forces have been accused of the majority of human rights violations.[71] Anti-government armed rebels have been accused of human rights abuses as well.[70]" 71.178.211.200 (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are accusations, they should be referred to as accusations. It is not the role of wikipedia to be judge and jury on these violations, but merely to report the allegations as they are made. To decide categorically that some violations are only "accused" violations whilst others are undisputed fact, made on the assumptions (and political bias) of the editor(s) is clearly POV. MrDjango (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Django[reply]

 Done I edited it to specifically state who is saying what. I also added sources. Sopher99 (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lede looks ridiculous for a war article. 2/3 of the lede is about international reactions and human rights stuff. Those parts definitely need to be trimmed.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is there anyway to compact the 'Commanders and leaders' section, because it became the largest and yet the least informative section.
2. I am not certain that the 'Casualties and losses' section, should list government officials. Unless you can show that they took part in the fighting they are just civilian.
3. The 'Syrian civil war' timeline use phases(first-third), where can I find explanation as to how those phases defined? Also I dont think that Timeline of the Syrian civil war should be the main article of the 'Uprising and civil war' section.--Mor2 (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) I propose we remove Iranian and Hezbollah leaders, Riyad Farid Hijab, and Abdul Halim Khaddam. The last two are defectors who don't have any real leadership in the armed opposition.
3) I propose we change the numbering of phases to "Protests and sieges", "Armed clashes", "During ceasefire" and "Resumed fighting".-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above imo obviously presents a clear WP:CONSENSUS that the situation on the ground warrants placing the Kurdish faction in a third column. By my count there are 12 users in support (9 + Sayerslle, the proposing user, and myself), with 3 in opposition. That's about as decent a consensus as anyone can hope for. Sopher99, I think your opposition has been noted by everyone, but if you actually start WP:EDIT-WARRING here to have your own way, we'll obviously need to take the matter somewhere else. -- Director (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP is WP:NOTAVOTE. It's not just Sopher, there are others who opposed a third column as well.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a factual dispute, its a subjective organizational issue - its a matter of personal opinion. Yes, the "others", so far as I can see, are yourself and User:I7laseral. Another 11 users disagree with you, however. -- Director (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you would look down to the simplifying the infobox, other users agreed to the double line as a solution. I7laseral (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]