Template:Pbneutral

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

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

Syria Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-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 C‑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 C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force

Template:Hidden infoboxes

Archives
Topical archives
Israel in the infobox DRN Kurds in the infobox Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Syrian civil war

Now, the template says ISIS is supported by Turkey, Qatar, S. Arabia and the USA. We should note that ISIS is not supported by those countries, but only the moderate groups have the support of those countries. Kavas (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want a dotted line because ISIS and FSA are straight out enemies. Sopher99 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

btw Rebels dint enter khanasser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobster888 (talk • contribs) 12:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is incorrect to say that only moderate groups have the support of those countries. For example, Turkey provides direct support to the al-Nusra Front, and Saudi Arabia provides direct support to the Islamic Front. DylanLacey (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't enough proof for Turkey's support to al-Nusra Front. Only a rumor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.177.217.146 (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Union,China is added as supported by in VietNam War although 16 Soviet Military advisers and 1446 Chinese Military advisers died in vietnam war. But in Syrian Civil War, Iran is added as a Belligerent not Supporter. why?? I think we should add Iran,Russia as a supported of Syrian Govt. in Syrian Civil War article. 39.50.213.158 (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Russia should definitely be added to a 'supported by' section under the 'Syrian Government Belligerents'. Possibly even Britain and France should be added to the 'supported by' sections.[reply]

The cited article for the Syrian Armed Forces part of the Syrian civil war claims that the Syrian Armed Forces has 178,000 troops available as of August 2013. The infobox portion of the article does not include the 36,000 personnel of the Syrian Air Defense Force nor the 5,000 of the Syrian Navy. This is inaccurate as both have engaged the Syrian opposition on the side of the Syrian government and should be included in the total number of troops. The Syrian Armed Forces portion of the infobox should reflect the cited article's number of 178,000. http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gtkInEzwWbqoAc5rB8YjKot8Or-A?docId=CNG.d5f1d6f398b0170d098b3ce0afb1ae34.4a1&hl=en http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/08/201181475734965763.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/23/syrian-rebels-seize-air-d_n_2939751.html Imgi12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does it matter? This article has exchanged academic integrity for propaganda. Any opportunity to inflate opposition numbers and shrink government numbers is pursued by a select few here.

Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:4647:AC04:0:558B:6EC0:FC69:5B2F (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LIKE(Lihaas (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Please dont refer to Al Nusra merely as "the Front", we now also have teh "Islamic ront" of which Nusra are NOT a part.(Lihaas (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

I'm a little confused. Does the Islamic coalition (Syria) still exist? Is this new Islamic Front a replacement.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Islamic Coalition consisted of nothing more than a single press release criticising the SNC. I suppose that the Islamic Front could be seen as a culmination of a process that started with the coalition's statement, given the overlap of membership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.50.58.180 (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Islamic Front was reported to have existed today...so its probably different. Or as the IP said.(Lihaas (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

@PaulC.B.Y.ed: I understand that editor Paul Christian B. Yang-ed on 13Nov2013,20:18 considered this article (197,000 bytes) too long, and suggested to move “intricate detail”-information to elsewhere (e.g. subarticles), and therefore put up a tag above the article, telling us that. Could he please indicate which specific sections he is criticizing? If he does not specify his complaint, we can not help him, I suppose. (This question is simultaneously posted on his User talk:Paul Christian B. Yang-ed.) Corriebertus (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From past discussions, I'd imagine he was referring to a day-by-day account of the conflict. Only major events should be listed in the main article. Daily activities should be placed within their related articles (like 2013 Aleppo offensive) and not in the main article. Coinmanj (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The complaint of ModestGenius expressed by his tag proselining on 16 December I consider incorrect. Sure the article has flaws, but proselining is not one of them – and surely not the entire section 2 is ‘proselined’. The real problem of the article, especially section 2, is that it is too long and needs summarizing, condensing; we seem to have consensus on that, considering the repeated tags (the present tag above the article since 24Nov, and another tag since 13Nov, and similar tags earlier), discussions, etc. Also Wikipedia recommends articles to be no longer than 100,000 bytes. Ofcourse I agree, that summarizing is difficult in a running war, but it is never impossible. See for example my attempt on 6 December. We need to service our readers better than we do now: give them a ‘short’ outline of the course of the war in this main article (not nine full screens, but e.g. two), directing the interested reader to longer narratives in subarticles. If I can find the time and energy I perhaps will give it another try, but I would appreciate if someone else would also try to summarize (parts of) section 2. Corriebertus (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Proselining'? For, outside Wikipedia, who says that this is a real word? 92.16.147.26 (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: 'too long?', to be continued in Talk:Syrian Civil War#Length, 16Jan2014 etc. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is the condition of the internet in Syria? To my knowledge there is significant unfair competition in the United states. Is there anyone who knows how electronic trade has impacted inequality and thereby scarcity in Syria. (presumably scarcity is the root cause of the conflict since people with lots of wealth tend to go boating or back yard parties)

(talk) 22:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.237.180 (talk) [reply]

You may have more luck finding an answer at Wikipedia's reference desk; article talk pages are for discussing the articles themselves, not their general subject. You may also want to review our Telecommunications in Syria article, which has a section on internet in Syria. --BDD (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is quite clearly photoshopped and should be removed from the article.

Tychobrahesnose (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a still from a Voice of America video [1] You can see it at 0:20 --Երևանցի ^talk 04:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I never. The lighting and perspective just seem so unnatural. Appreciate you clearing this up. Tychobrahesnose (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it turns out to be a still from a Voice of America video - this fact alone should have set alarm bells ringing. File under: PRO-FSA DISINFORMATION? 92.16.146.240 (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take your anti-Americanism to somewhere else. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. --Երևանցի ^talk 16:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concept being anti-American is an interesting one. For the "counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships... "Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents were condemned as "anti-Soviet." That's a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture." Noam Chomsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.180.237 (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This media is in the public domain because it is material provided by Voice of America, the official external radio and TV broadcasting service of the U.S. federal government." Wikipedia

Give there a risk that it was photo-faked, and considering it was from a US government outlet, should this picture still be used by world-wide Wikipedia? 88.107.52.44 (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The map on the section "Foreign involvement" is repeating the same thing twice, using two colors for the same statement. --190.172.242.179 (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’m quite unhappy with the recent move ‘Syrian civil war’ → ‘Syrian Civil War’.

What Does It Help Anybody, In The Encyclopedia Or On The Syrian Ground, If We Capitalize Those Words? Mr. Charles Essie 24 Nov 2013, 00:55, gives exactly the reason why NOT to capitalize: this is NOT YET a historical event! (like WW II, etc.) Also the only argument of the next speakers, AjaxSmack+kwami+BDD, is incorrect: this article indeed does describe ‘the general phenomenon Syrian civil war’, because this one, which started 2011, is still the only Syrian civil war we know (I guess). I support the above given arguments of FutureTrillionaire. I suppose, Charles Essie and supporters want to express their sorrow about the Scw by capitalizing it in Wikipedia. I consider that a wrong reaction. Send sorry-money to the Red Cross, please, but don’t distort our encyclopedia out of pity or shame or whatever. (Wrong encyclopediae can even make things worse, on the ground: don’t underestimate the power of words.) I propose to turn that move back. Corriebertus (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to request a new move the normal wait time is 7 days, consensus was to move the page though sometimes things don't always go your way but per WP:STICK I think we should just all go with the flow. Hey consensus can change but right now it has been established. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Consensus" should not be a handful of people making decisions that affect an entire family of high-visibility content -- against Wikipedia guidelines, no less -- over a major holiday that I, for one, spent with my family and loved ones rather than on Wikipedia. At the very least, the administrator involved should have recognized that it would have been best to solicit more comments from editors before closing the discussion. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by historical event was that this is a major event with history-making impact (like the Arab Spring itself, which is capitalized!), and no, this article is not about "the general phenomenon of civil war in Syria", it is about a unique "Civil War" that started on March 15, 2011, "general phenomenon" would mean an article about the history of "civil war" in Syria comprising all internal conflicts throughout Syria's history, that's not what this page is about. Charles Essie (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The discussion was still ongoing, and was closed too soon. We need to wait for the supporters of the move to respond to the "sporadic conflict" counter example. I suggest that we file a request for WP:Mediation if necessary.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this war different from all other civil wars (Spanish Civil War, Greek Civil War, Russian Civil War, American Civil War, Chinese Civil War)? --Երևանցի ^talk 21:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Yerevanci: The difference is that professional sources do capitalize the names of the conflicts you listed: Spanish Civil War, Greek Civil War, etc. Look in any history book about one of the conflicts you listed and you will see that it capitalizes the name of the conflict. However, this is not the case for the Syrian conflict. There are no professional/reliable sources that uses the capitalized term "Syrian Civil War". They usually say something like "Syria's civil war" or "civil war in Syria", or "Syrian civil war", etc. For example: Death toll from Syrian civil war tops 125,000". I don't think Wikipedia shouldinvent proper nouns. Do you understand my argument? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with FutureTrillionaire. We have effectively decided that there is a "rule" of sorts about civil wars that we must follow, even if it means making up our own proper names for things and establishing them site-wide on one of the most visited websites in the world. It's utterly improper; I'd go so far as to cite WP:OSE and WP:OR in arguing against this poorly conceived move. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even more sources say "Syria war" but we don't say that. Charles Essie (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so.

• Encyclopædia Britannica - Syrian Civil War
• Huffington Post - Bashar Assad Gains Ground In Syrian Civil War
• Spiegel Online - Chemical Watershed: Momentum Shifts again in Syrian Civil War
• Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty - Syrian Civil War -- A Timeline Of Tragedy
• NPR - Syrian Civil War Rooted In Drought Years Before Fighting Began
• New York Times - Death Toll in Syrian Civil War Near 93,000, U.N. Says

Aren't these "professional/reliable sources"? --Երևանցի ^talk 23:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Yerevantsi: Yes, but every word in those titles are capitalized... So I'm not sure how that supports the capitalization case. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You got a point. I overlooked that. But it's not all of them. Britannica is definitely a good source. I don't know about you, but for me that source alone is enough to support the capitalization of "civil war." --Երևանցի ^talk 16:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It baffles me how an old, but fundamental discussion, at length discussed in: ‘Speedy move’ (23 July 2012), ‘New move request’ (23 July – 5 August 2012) and ‘Requested move to Syrian civil war’ (6 – 19 August 2012), gets reopened – which ofcourse is always permitted – and, in only eight days, with only nine! people joining in the discussion, apparently without any substantial or new argument, quickly leads to such enormous change in our encyclopedia. I can’t blame Charles Essie and his seven supporters for this to happen, because discussion must always be allowed; but how can moderator tariqabjotu have overseen the fact that no (serious) (new) argument was given, and that far too few people have been asked for their opinions? I mean: I beg your pardon, I’m very busy making Wikipedia better, I don’t spare me the time to run over to this Talk-page every second day to check if disastrous edits or moves are imminent. But if something has been seriously discussed before, like in this case, you (tariqabjotu and colleagues) should give a re-discussion far more room, far more time, before closing and concluding it. This going-about is utterly disrespectful towards all those who invested their time and energy in those mentioned earlier discussions in 2012. Charles now says(2Dec): ‘ArabSpring is capitalized’ (irrelevant: we follow sources who do that); ‘major event etc.’ (personal opinion). He gives no encyclopedial argument, like he already did not in 24Nov-1Dec. The fact that 24Nov2013 he immediately started to swear by Jesus Christ shows that his move came out of his emotional involvement in this war. I don’t disapprove of emotional involvement, on the contrary. But it shouldn’t lead us to wrong encyclopedial decisions. Corriebertus (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me correct myself. I don’t disagree with Charles that this Scw is rather a ‘major event’. We all know that, and we all knew that when the title was still lower case (Syrian civil war). I don’t see a reason in its being ‘major’ to capitalize the page title: Wikipedia follows sources (as FutureTr. said,24Nov; as TaalVerbeteraar explained 6Aug2012). Charles does see that reason, so we obviously disagree on that point. I respect his opinion, but I disagree on that opinion. The point is, Wikipedia is a community, and I would like to hear the others about this thing. And I blame the moderator who perhaps too quickly moved the page, on 2Dec2013. Corriebertus (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the move was done too quickly. I strongly oppose the move and would have been happy to chime in, but apparently I blinked (over the holiday weekend, no less, in my country) and missed the discussion. We're tremendously jumping the gun to declare "Syrian Civil War" the proper name of this conflict; there are wars that have been going on for much longer that don't have proper names (War in Afghanistan (2001-present) and War in Darfur) come to mind. This is a civil war, indisputably. It is happening in Syria, indisputably. But where I get off the bandwagon is where we make the jump (over WP:COMMONNAME, mind you) to saying that because other wars in history have been named the American Civil War and the Spanish Civil War, a civil war in XXX country must rightfully be called the XXXn Civil War, regardless of whether WP:RS call it that or not. This move was completely bungled and made against Wikipedia guidelines, and it should be reverted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. If you "strongly oppose" then you should have voted. Why didn't you? The move request lasted over a week (Nov. 24 - Dec. 2). Did you just find out about it? That's weird. And since when is Encyclopædia Britannica not a reliable source? Are magazines and newspapers more reliable than the most famous English encyclopedia? --Երևանցի ^talk 20:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found out about the discussion after the move closed. As I pointed out -- it was a holiday week in my country, and I had a number of things happening in my personal life that meant I had very little time for Wikipedia and other websites I normally spend time on during the week. Are you doubting that if I had seen the discussion, I would have weighed in? I think you'll find I've been quite active on Arab Spring content for the past three years. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I resent the idea that my proposal was done out of emotional reasons, I consider that an insult to my intelligence, and the intelligence of the supporters of the move, I you want to continue the discussion, that's fine (I'm also starting to think that maybe it was a little premature), but let's keep this mature. Charles Essie (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone provide a terse explanation as to why the capitalization of this article is A Big Deal? VQuakr (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles, I didn’t try to insult you, I was just guessing what your real reason was because I couldn’t find a logical reason. Nobody was confused about what our ‘Syrian civil war’ would mean, so why would mr. Charles make such effort to change it? Now you deny any emotional reason. Up till now I see one argument, and it didn’t come from Charles: argument ‘Encyclopaedia Britannica’ (see above, 2Dec, 23:58). I’m in doubt now. @ Vquakr: we (or I) want to see reasons for edits, and yes, also for Capitalizing. Charles (or whoever) must have a reason for it, and in a community-project we have a right to ask each other the (real) reason. Personally I dislike prematurely idolizing things, even or especially wars, putting them on some pedestal, so to speak. Makes it perhaps harder to end them. @ Can this Yerevantsi(20:59,3Dec) please get off that insulting tone?Corriebertus (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I guess you're right, it's okay to ask. Charles Essie (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Corriebertus:, thank you for your reply. Personally I do not particularly care how the last two words of this article are spelled, but the requested move above does appear to be correctly closed. Consensus can change with time, the RM was open a week, and there was no way a neutral admin could close that as anything but move. Charles gave an extensive reason in his move nomination, and referring to the "real" reason seems to be a mild violation of WP:AGF. In English proper nouns, not idols, are capitalized so that portion of your statement seems melodramatic. It certainly is not our role as editors to make it any easier or harder to end wars - we seek to document information, not influence it. VQuakr (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your last sentence, which is why I think this move was a bad idea. And I don't think the administrator acted correctly; he seemed to treat the move discussion as a simple vote, rather than noticing that FutureTrillionaire made convincing arguments that editors simply ignored (or perhaps didn't have time to respond to) in their scramble to write some variation on "Support per nom". Move requests that affect an entire tree of content, in my opinion, should be treated as having a higher threshold than requests that pertain only to a single page. In this case, it should have been obvious that the issue had not been fully addressed by the time the discussion was closed. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Corriebertus: "This" Yerevantsi has never used an "insulting tone". Your groundless accusations clearly don't make Wikipedia any better. --Երևանցի ^talk 23:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ Yerevantsi|Երևանցի: “...Hmm … then you should have …Why didn’t you? … That’s weird. And since when …”: is such contribution relevant to the discussed issue? Hardly, I believe; it seems to me rather a series of (personal) attacks at Kudzu1, which I, perhaps loosely, characterized as ‘an insulting tone’. (And not correctly placed at the bottom but half way the discussion, which proves that you were specifically after Kudzu1 and hardly trying to help forward this discussion.) @ VQuakr: “violation of Assume good faith”: are you crazy? I’m fully entitled to judge what I myself consider a logical reason and what not. And entitled to guess at whatever I’d like to guess at. And why do you suggest that I proclaimed that it is our role as editors to make it easier or harder to end wars? I resent that, if I may rightly quote the honorable CharlesEssie ☺ Corriebertus (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been thinking over this Encyclopaedia Brittannica (EB) argument from Yerevantsi|Երևանցի (3Dec,16:09), and find it not convincing. As FutureTrillionaire has pointed out (24Nov2013,02:44, discussion ‘Requested move (again)’): Wikipedia follows ‘reliable sources’, as to yes or not capitalizing. The only source we’ve found that capitalizes Syrian Civil War appears to be … a rival (or colleague) encyclopedia! But that is not what we mean by: we follow ‘sources’. EB may have its own reasonings and principles, which we perhaps not even fully know, and certainly not have to blindly follow. We are Wikipedia, and are capable and entitled to develop our own style, guidelines, conventions, and so forth.

Charles’ first argument 24Nov: “for Christ’s sake, every Civil War article is capitalized”, has been shown by FutureTrillionaire(FT)24Nov as not very relevant. Charles’ second argument was: “that’s what you do with historical events”. He explained this on 2Dec,21:51 (above) as: “major event…” (and 30Nov,19:28, as: “full-blown…”). This shows, that he wants it to be capitalized not just because it is a proper noun (which is not proven) but because he judges this war to be BIG, MAJOR! And that’s exactly the sort of judgement that we as Wikipedia should NOT (want to) make! Because then we would be “trend starters”, as FT called it, 27Nov,17:05! The third argument came from AjaxSmack,24Nov,02:37: “(proper) name”. This seems not proven, because Enc.Britt. is not a source which can prove that, as I explained above. (Kwami,24Nov,02:47, talks uncomprehensible secret language; if he posed a new argument I have not been able to decipher it.)

The score in this section is now: three people in favour of a return to Syrian civil war (Corriebertus, FutureTrillionaire, Kudzu1), two people against such a move (CharlesEssie and Yerevantsi|Երևանցի). Corriebertus (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there's consensus for a move, then so be it. I think the discussion was closed way too soon, and due consideration was not given to the strength of arguments on both sides. I think the move should be provisionally reverted and the move discussion should be reopened. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no real reason to change it back. People are going to have their opinions for or against and if the title is changed again I'm fairly certain someone will try to revert it back. I think people are spending far too much time on something that really isn't all that important (than say the length and quality of the article itself), especially given that sooner or later the proper name will become "Syrian Civil War". This is about a specific event, a singular civil war, and for me that makes its name worthy of being a proper noun. Just my thoughts on the matter. Coinmanj (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But right now the proper name is not "Syrian Civil War", which appears to be an invention by a handful of Wikipedia editors. And as for saying the proper name will "sooner or later ... become 'Syrian Civil War'", that is textbook WP:CRYSTAL. I think your argument is case in point as to why this move was improper. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3Dec,16:37, I openly reasoned: CharlesEssie consistently gives no ‘encyclopedic argument’ for his move(request) Syrian civilwar → Syrian CivilWar; did however start off his request(24Nov2013,00:55) by invoking the name of the Christian saint and messiah Jesus Christ (which invoking usually is called swearing, if I’m not erring); therefore, I openly guessed that Charles’ move request had primarily come out of some emotional involvement towards the outcome of that ‘move request’24Nov-1Dec (which I tersely indicated as: the ‘real reason’). VQuakr 4Dec04:25 calls that referring to (i.e. guessing at) the ‘real reason’ of that move request: violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. If I look at just the nutshell-summary of that ‘general accepted behavioral guideline’, VQ apparently accuses me of having assumed that Charles is deliberately trying to hurt the Wikipedia project. I believe I have neither assumed that, nor accused Ch of that. Therefore, I ask VQ to either prove or underpin, or take back his accusation; I also ask CharlesEssie to testify that there is no ground for VQ’s accusation; I also ask the other discussants in this section to testify that there is no ground that accusation of VQuakr’s. If no one proves prepared to clear my name from that accusation, I will no further discuss in this section.

By the way: Kudzu1 here on 5Dec seems to (try to) get lost in this ‘labyrinth’. The actual move request is: back to Scw. Don’t call that a ‘provisional revert’; don’t prophesy a discussion after that move; don’t keep repeating that the move of 2Dec,05:41 was ‘improper’ (I think it was indeed questionable, but that should not be the issue, here and now). Coinmanj 5Dec says: ‘specific event’ (correct); ‘therefore worthy of being a proper noun’ (that’s a new ‘argument’. The point is: that argument is hardly deserving of belief, hardly relevant. Everyone in the world will understand, and be able to look up in our discussion history, that we’ve capitalized Scw to SCW because we (Charles, and after him Wikipedia) have judged this war to be BIG, MAJOR! That will be taken by the world as the real reason for Wikipedia to have capitalized that lemma title. And they will rightly take it so, because that was the reason for that capitalization, as I’ve argued 4Dec21:43.) Nevertheless: this standpoint of Coinmanj brings the score in this discussion at three against three. Corriebertus (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It blames most of the human rights violations to the government forces, while all those thousands and thousands of you tube videos are showing cannibal rebels eating hearts and doing all kind of atrocities, beheadings included, while filming and celebrating about them. We are talking about endless videos here that they are posting themselves.

It does not mention the tens of thousands of rapes that were made by the rebels, it does not says the atrocities that the jihadists are doing in Syria. The article resembles more of a typical western mainstream media which always tries to propagandize against the one that the western politics doesn't like... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talk • contribs) 00:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people agree with you, but you are going to need to provide sources. Unfortunately you are not able to use YouTube videos as sources and most of the sources deemed 'reliable' are Western sources that are vehemently pro-rebel/Islamist. You might be able to get by with Russia Today, but we have a few users here who will kick up a stink for using it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.172.4 (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Our new Syria crowdmap numbers of sexualizedviolence: 85% of reports show govt/shabiha perps of male & female attacks. Rest=unknown/FSA - [2]Sayerslle (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What did you expect? Truth, freedom of speech? Please... Sure, we need to give sources from the media when contributing to the article? The thing is, pretty much every Syrian and non-Syrian pro-Government media outlet is sanctioned (taken off satellites, jammed), blocked or put offline (like DDoS attacks on www.sana.sy happening right now for example). All we have are "neutral" media outlets which rarely tell the real truth. Do you now see how Wiki works? Now they'll accuse me of "anti-Americanism" or some similar nonsense.

• you can see the article [3] in Russian language, and you can see: two very large tables, each of war crimes (al-Assad, / opposition), which is now in this article in English is almost all against al-Assad, and I think it's just laziness authors to not write about crimes of the opposition, reported by the UN, XRW, world health organization, representatives of mass media(Wall Street Journal and many others).Rqasd (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Americanism: when questioning why a still picture (from a Voice of America video) was used in the 'Photoshopped image' section, I was told: "Take your anti-Americanism to somewhere else." 92.17.180.237 (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, more to the point - why now?

In the British Independent newspaper (22 Jan 2014) reporter Robert Fisk highlights whether we "should be asking a lot more questions than we have been asking about this portrait gallery of pain, unleashed only hours before an the international conference in Switzerland...

For he asks how long "have the Qatari authorities been in possession of this terrible eye-witness material? A couple of weeks, just enough time to rustle up the lawyers for the prosecution? Or a couple of months? Or six months? And, more to the point, why now? For it would be difficult to imagine a better way for Qatar - whose royal family viscerally hates Bashar al-Assad - to destroy his hopes of a future role in Syria, even in a 'transitional' Syrian government, than by releasing these snapshots of terror just before the Swiss talks."

Far from an honest attempt to uncover war crimes, are there not good reasons to say/suggest that the latest release of horror stories and pictures (this time from Qatari authorities) are just another in a long line of well-timed disinformation aimed at undermining the peace process? Also, given such questions, should not Wikipedia cover all sides of this issue? 84.13.10.106 (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add support for Assads Regime by Russia on the belligerent list 68.209.168.216 (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --ElHef (Meep?) 23:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The US has halted its aid to the syrian rebels, therefore it shouldn't be mentioned as a rebel supporting country. Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/11/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 Thisissparta12345 (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has poured money and influence into the conflict over years, so its decision to punitively withdraw support, to effect a policy change, doesn't mean we should change our description. -Darouet (talk) 13:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Darouet. One temporary decision now does not negate years of support. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty obvious that. But the mention should be one of the harem of pages here (which im sure it must be)(Lihaas (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

NEWS UPDATE: The CNN story is interesting for what it does not say. For for both the BBC and RT reported that "aid" was halted due to Islamist rebels seizing bases (and perhaps weapons?) belonging to the "Free Syrian Army". Fighters from the Islamic Front took control of the bases at the Bab al-Hawa border crossing. Since the US government has started waking to the kind of people it was giving aid to - why not mentioned this? 92.17.180.237 (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S: And so, as it turned out, it was just as well the British voted against the bombing of Syria. 92.17.180.237 (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

or maybe this is closer to the reality - [4] -"A post-Assad revolutionary Syria or a truly democratic one on the other hand might take the Palestinian struggle seriously and not use them as pawns." - Sayerslle (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it is controlled by Saudi and Qatar, which it will be. Even Hamas was pacified after they accepted Qatari support over Iranian/Syrian. FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" Early on, Obama sent the CIA into Turkey to throttle the flow of weapons to the opposition, and make sure they never got enough weapons to win, or weapons that could neutralize Assad's "Death from Above" air campaign [5] - Sayerslle (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. You're implying Obama is pro-Assad? In that case, wouldn't he want to make sure they didn't get any weapons at all? Logic, people. All the poor man wanted was to prolong the war so Israel could exist for a couple more years. And what the hell is a "deathfrom above air campaign"? I guess it is love from above when the US and Israel drone strikes civilians all over the world every day? FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from needlessly giving the impression that Wikipedia is a supporter FSA, how does calling for weapons that could neutralize Assad's "Death from Above" air campaign' help anyone? 92.20.240.201 (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“Syria crisis: Time to rethink a future with Assad?”

Paul Adams, BBC News, 13 December 2013.

Also, the former CIA and NSA director, Michael Hayden, says that he is trending toward option three (a victory for Assad) as “the best out of three very, very ugly possible outcomes.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.182.6 (talk) 12:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Assad Is the Least Worst Option"

Commenting in the New York Times (December 21, 2013) Ryan C. Crocker says: “It is time to consider a future for Syria without Assad’s ouster, because it is overwhelmingly likely that is what the future will be.” Ryan C. Crocker served as United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Kuwait and Lebanon. He is also dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University.

Should not Wikipedia mention the growing reports of a possible US policy change towards Syria? 92.16.147.26 (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He should be removed from main commanders on the war infobox.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/12/12/US-backed-Syrian-rebel-commander-flees-country/UPI-96541386829631/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.172.4 (talk) 06:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

create subtitle shelling of peaceful quarters as sources cite a few long movies (20 to 40 minutes), in which the residents of districts talk to the camera, not hiding who they are and where and when, who and when and how to shoot (shooting / firing). references will be the most usual[1],[2],[3],[4]/. but these films are available in Russian. I hope this is not a problem? --Rqasd (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• the subtitle of the shelling of peaceful quarters

text - TV channels # 1 and # 2 shot several films, including documentaries and just movies) with numerous and detailed stories about firing from the side of***** [1],[2],[3]. In these films, people talk about attacks not hiding his face and place of event, and the time when it was.

References 1. [] (sources in Russian language) 2. [](sources in Russian language) 3. [](sources in Russian language) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rqasd (talk • contribs) 09:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• you can also see 1 video documentary on German (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXTHKUoWE6E) or Russian but with subtitles in English (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsj82qIe4_0).--Rqasd (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+ 2 video documentary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iAnhGCaG6s&feature=youtu.be Russian but with subtitles in English — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rqasd (talk • contribs) 03:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC) the third source in English ^[1]+besides that there is an English language site of the company. the links from this source in the original links, very easily transferred by Internet browsers automatically, and with good quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rqasd (talk • contribs) 03:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (ITAR-TASS and Russia-24 (TV channel) and Russia-1 (TV channel))'t I just delete immediately 3 different source from 3 different and very very major news agencies working for many years around the world simply because it is for you unconvincing. I have filed a grievance and prove that the opinion of 3 different media much powerful than your own.--Rqasd (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

among the stories taken by these companies is he that was applied by the United Nations Commission for the investigation of the use of chemical weapons in Syria (one of the sources for confirmation of my words, there are many other, more reputable) http://www.kp.ru/online/news/1611130/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rqasd (talk • contribs) 07:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question -- and I really don't mean to be rude. Your English is, well, not good. I'm used to working with editors from Russia, the Middle East, France, Spain, etc., and it's sometimes tricky to understand them, but I really can't understand you at all (and hopefully somebody else can help me out here, because I don't just want to discount everything you're saying!). Considering that English is clearly a somewhat difficult language for you to write in, why are you editing the English-language Wikipedia and not the Russian-language Wikipedia? (I assume you're from Russia, based on the sources you've provided.)

More to the point of your content itself: as I've explained to you (or tried to explain, anyway) elsewhere, YouTube videos are not acceptable as WP:RS in this context, and the state-owned media enterprises you present as sources are viewed with a pretty skeptical eye because of the rampant censorship and propaganda tradition in Russia (which isn't unique to that country, but I digress). I don't consider them RS myself, and I don't think there's consensus that the content is reliable and noteworthy. And considering you have now been reverted thrice by two different editors, and at least one other editor has expressed a complaint about the content, I think you need to slow down. If you really want to see this content included, you can try to obtain consensus for it, or try to advance a compromise under which less objectionable material can be included (perhaps with stronger citations, if any are available). But considering the language barrier both in our interactions and in the source material you want to include, IMO, it would be a better bet for you to bring this up on ru.wikipedia.org. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well. Then for a consensus. Look new edition, here.

In addition, the new version unambiguously says that the media reported. If you want I can even delete the Video. But what then? you tell that need sources to translation? And, this Video is a record of ether TV channel, it is not mounting. It is not unprofessional video, this is *news release* TV .

• You are not (!) can you talk about the unreliability of the (biased) media, just because you say so. Need a source of such information, where is said that my media is bad media, specifically: what I used this lie.

Rqasd (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly a secret that Russian media is manipulated to favor the Kremlin's angle. We've had this discussion about the likes of RT and Pravda. Attributing statements from these dubious sources is better than not, but I really don't think these belong in the article any more than propaganda from SANA or Press TV does. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• not a secret, that *you* lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, deceived (lied) United States (USA) USA-deceiver. and I say unto you, that this is NOT the FORUM. you *moderator *and must know it. your personal opinion without a source of absolutely negligibly.

or you want appearance of the article about freedom of speech in the USA reached what any person can. he provided no evidence to convict in a lie, several foreign corporations. I understand you correctly?Rqasd (talk)11:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)?

In reply to Kudzu1: Well, it seems that the articles of the free Western media about war can be traced back to government sources over 90% of the time as well. Perhaps the "fog of war" applies equally to both sides, or at least more than is generally acknowledged. Esn (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I have enough knowledge of English to do this: Wikipedia:the Challenge of administrative actionRqasd (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...okay. Go for it. You do realize that I'm not in the U.S. government, right? I'm just some guy on Wikipedia like everybody else? Okay. I can't really parse anything you said beyond that...seriously, can somebody help me out here? -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• help me (PLEASE), make an application (request), the fact that a third party has confirmed / denied my sources. it is in the rules.+ I'll add another TV company (only commercial, 100%). but it has no translation, but, however I just use only 1 phrase ( from all of these sources). I can get other translations (from the owners of the film - companies). but. this is unlikely. 1 phrase - is not *original research* (the rules prohibit this). only a short conclusion.--Rqasd (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

in the result. I use design: = official source (link)+free copyright (translation (link)). +delete part of the non-translatable sources. it is so much better?

this design = 2 source, will give a result. Verifiability (validity/reliability) for the source. which of them is propaganda, we will never know. but incorrectly have 1 version of truth. if 2 in reality. the article should be neutral. you can see *my* article and see. 50%+50% of versions. [[6]] --Rqasd (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this Chapter is very much needed article, because according to the rules, the article should be neutral, without this Chapter happen that there is only 1 party but not the second. I only use the documentary footage, the video, which was filmed by journalists, as well as reports of these and other journalists who lived for months in the place of events.

--Rqasd (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

look (my answer + the bottom (at the end) new variant of the edits: **mortars**).and Yes, I wrote in Russian about 30%, articles about Syria (civil war) and more than 50% of the article about Syria (war crimes). Me there are no claims, only the discussion and editing of edits, but not cancel deleting edits.

• There are many fixes: in English and of the official English language sources.

look. if you are against such a contribution (if you are against this editing). please. detailed answer why. in order not to initiate administrative proceedings. --Rqasd (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC) you have reverted the edit, said - Undoing pov pushing and use of unreliable sources. I changed the edits. now there is no such problem? pov? unreliable sources - it is impossible. all sources is very authoritative media, they work *news*, worldwide, many years. if you do not have a source that ITAR-TASS's a lie (specifically those articles that I used), if you have no source (*battle for Syria* it's a lie). you can't delete my edits. it is outside the rules. in addition, I give the translation. I give references are free from copyright. in addition, the recording of TV ether (news release) this is the authoritative source. this is a verifiable source. moreover, *the battle for Syria* is a documentary film. other sources (if there are sources without translation tell me and I mend). but you can't simply delete all at once. my sources have become in Wikipedia. you can read about them that is large media (news)Rqasd (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rqasd (talk • contribs)

small mortars and rockets

Mass media reported:

ITAR-TASS official text of the [7],[8], [9], [10]

and Russia-24 (TV channel) free copyright *Syrian diary* [11] *the battle for Syria*[12] official video documentary *Syrian diary* [13] official video documentary and the official text of the *the battle for Syria* [14] video documentary Russian, but with English subtitles: *Syrian diary* [15] *the battle for Syria* [16]

and Russia-1 (TV channel) free copyright *truth of the war*[17] official video documentary *truth of the war*[18]

• For more than two years, there are frequent shelling of peaceful neighborhoods throughout Syria Syrian opposition forces or controlled-Syrian opposition territory. There are other sources of talking or present confirming that the shelling is frequent and widespread throughout the country phenomenon[19].

and NTV (Russia) all of the shooting from the territory of the opposition, official video documentary *The territory of AK* [20] free copyright *The territory of AK* [21]: all this also claim (interview) commanders of the opposition (several different groups). In summary. Syrian opposition is fighting against Assad, and against *not Islamic* laws of religion. And against anything, not named (other troops Syrian opposition), but these groups are officially recognized by terrorists, but they do not give interviews and they are also part of the opposition.

small mortars and rockets Mass media[22][23][24] reported. Shelling civilian quarters by opposition militants. Such shellings are frequent and widespread. Sources: TV news air footage, documentary films(1-official video documentary and the official text of the *the battle for Syria* [25] video documentary + English subtitles: *the battle for Syria* [26] , 2-video documentary + English subtitles:*Syrian diary* [27]). There are also other sources confirming this phenomenon ([28],[29],[30], [31], [32]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rqasd (talk • contribs) 13:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

option http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K25XBJolG5w — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rqasd (talk • contribs) 12:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG64Fqf_fPc German+subtitles in German *Syrian diary* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rqasd (talk • contribs) 15:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkrTQRg571w&bpctr=1388073840 English+subtitle in English+ text in English. about. the very good insurgents. ha ha ha ha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rqasd (talk • contribs) 15:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No article on this war should contain citations of "Brown Moses", who has finally been exposed as a paid stooge, and of withholding facts.[33][34] Another in a long line of western mercenary "journalists" (Elizabeth O'Bagy, Matthew VanDyke, etc.) who have been exposed recently. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are another blog (with a very particular POV) and a website made by a party to the conflict. Not exactly sufficient to purge everything. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait a couple of days, and it'll spread around. After all, Higgins himself has tried to explain his comments without even trying to claim they're fabricated. Vandyke has gone completely nuts on the other hand, and is suspiciously defensive on his Twitter profile. Good times. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Van Dyke was always kind of unhinged and never really a "journalist" to begin with. Remains to be seen how much this will stick to Higgins; I'm not sure it's quite as potentially career-wrecking as lying about credentials like O'Bagy did. We'll see. Social media in times of conflict is boatloads of fun no matter what way you look. Seeing "anti-imperialist" darling Syrian Partisan Girl flirting with a notorious Klansman was a real hoot. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

western fascists love Assad - Nick Griffin went there to see him and prostrate himself. calling brown moses a 'paid stooge' ? and hysterical overstatement of what has been 'exposed' - nonsense. its obviously 'shoot the messenger' territory. RS quote brown moses and Wikipedia should. funkmonk just wants press tv and Russia today and reliable, honest brokers like that no doubt. ffs. Sayerslle (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You better re-remove this section again, Sayers. Or else the Quaker will hang us both by our bowels. As for Fascists, Western ultra Leftists like Assad too, so interpret it however you want. My interpretation: everyone hates Salafists (left and right, they are danger to everyone), except Salafists themselves, and those who can use them to weaken Iran. Newsflash: Ultra nationalists and ultra Leftists both dislike the US government and Israel. Therefore they like their enemies. FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, WP:NOTAFORUM is really worth a read here. As to the blog -- wasn't the consensus on Ghouta chemical attack at least that a self-published article (such as a blog post) isn't notable/reliable unless it's referenced (in detail, not in passing) by a reliable source? Therefore, we shouldn't be using any Brown Moses Blog content unless it's specifically reported on by news outlets like The Guardian, The Washington Post, The New York Times, Der Spiegel, etc. I don't think Higgins' affiliations are germane at all, unless there's smoking-gun evidence that he's a bought-and-paid-for, state-controlled propaganda machine a la RT or SANA. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or Voice of America? Moses gets funding from HRW to support their claims. That is pretty damning. FunkMonk (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I only know 1 source which is very reputable, and is often used in English Wikipedia, although it is a blog and this blog is in Russian, but this blog is officially part of the state enterprise, and they write only what you can legally write this enterprise, and only that which is the subject of this enterprise.--Rqasd (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone add {{Main|Human rights violations during the Syrian Civil War}} to the top of the human-rights-violations sub-section, please? IMABibliophile (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where would be the best place to place this. This was reported by RT, BBC, Sana and some others.

Over 80 civilians in a town (Adra) northwest of the Syrian capital of Damascus have been executed by Islamist rebels. Many others were kidnapped to be used as human shields.

‘People toasted in ovens’

What the Islamist rebels did when they entered Adra on Wednesday morning was a “massacre,” one a local resident told RT.

“The situation was terrible - with killing, atrocities, and fear as the background. Unidentified armed men came into town, but it was obvious that they were Jabhat al-Nusra militants,” Muhammad Al-Said said.

“The worst crime they committed was that they toasted people in ovens used to bake bread when those people came to buy it. They kidnapped and beat up many,” he added.

http://rt.com/news/syria-adra-civilian-execution-289/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by LvcAK47 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• heard analog (analogue). source radio, referring to a source - Arab TV channel. Figure-90, but not 80. But as I look here never write about crimes of the opposition.

--Rqasd (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See Adra massacre. FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it would be good to implement it into Syrian Civil War article since most alleged government crimes are here, but most of those commited by the rebels are missing which makes the article feel pro-rebel, which definitely shouldn't be the case on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LvcAK47 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• this news. reference (source) on the TV channel *al-Ahd*. text = Russian language. [[35]] but where is the source - ("

www // al-ahd . com")?Rqasd (talk) 13:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Open Doors (a non-denominational group that supports persecuted Christians) said Wednesday that 2,123 Christians were killed because of their faith in 2013, up from 1,201 last year, and that 1,213 martyrs were recorded in Syria alone. Reuters Jan, 08, 2014

Given the growing number of such reports, instead putting most of the blame on the Syrian government, should not the article attempt to reflect the level of killings and murders carried out by the rebels/FSA? 2.96.117.80 (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the above is a clear indication that the rebels have been involved in many human rights crimes, does not Wikipedia need to update the statement about "the vast majority of the abuses having been committed by the Syrian government"? 78.147.83.86 (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "vast majority of the abuses having been committed by the Syrian government"?

Despite latest reports on rebel crimes, Wikipedia continues to use this statement. If there are no up-dates, might not people draw their own conclusions about such a misleading comment? 78.147.90.191 (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take it that Wikipedia is not funded by any US Government Departments? For despite repeated questions, this site point-blank refuses to question the role of the FSA/related terror gangs or admit the true level of their crimes - almost as if you are following US policy on Syria? 84.13.8.219 (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are Wikipedia -or Wikipedians- still insisting to call this bunch of foreign long-bearded Islamist terrorists as rebels? Any rational explanation?--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should be following what the preponderance of mainstream sources use. My survey of the sources does not show "foreign long-bearded Islamist terrorist" as a common term for the opposition. VQuakr (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to build up a rational discussion without kidding. I did not mean to put the phrase "foreign long-bearded Islamist terrorist" in the articles. There are more accurate terms to be used rather than rebels (like militants, armed opposition or even terrorist groups). Stop making fun of others.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to build up an impartial and substantiated argument without soapboxing. If there are "more accurate" labels to be used, then show us that they are the most common term in reliable sources. Stop getting irrationally hostile towards others. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-opposition sources (US, Wetsren, Islamist sources), definitely use the term rebels, because those Islamists have become freedom fighters in their perspective, while pro-government sources (or pro-Syrian regime sources as you might like to call them) are labeling them as terrorsits or mercenaries. As you said "try to build up an impartial and substantiated argument without soapboxing", why should Wikipedia use the pro-opposition term and not the neutral terms? Why don't Wikipedians become balancecd and neutral by using a term that would be acceptable for both sides? Isn't it better to label them as "armed opposition" or "armed militants", as they are far away from being rebels, especially the foreigners?--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, there are a few terms that we've used on Wikipedia. Rebels, opposition fighters, anti-government militants, Islamist fighters (when appropriate), regime defectors (again, when appropriate), etc. I'm not sure what your point is? "Rebels" is short, to the point, commonly used, and accurate. And in future, when you're trying to advance an argument, maybe don't open with a pejorative characterization of the entire opposition movement in Syria and what looks suspiciously close to an accusation that all of your fellow editors here are willfully trying to distort the truth? -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• the term opposition - all, terrorists, insurgents, and others. the rebels .... may be in any concrete case it was the rebels. as there is no official source: correct to say so. as it is called in the article. I think that you're (Zyzzzzzy) wrong. today. Wiki not become says that the opposition = rebels Rqasd (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This can’t be considered a constructive discussion. Who are ‘a bunch of (bearded) terrorists’ according to Zyzzy? Where does Wikipedia call those terrorists rebels? Why can’t a terrorist be a rebel? Nonsense discussions on this page should be ignored and aborted, I think. (And Rqasd writes incomprehensible code here: please try to write English language.) Corriebertus (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All this seemingly endless talk(ing-shop) might soon be pointless. As this war drags on, and the FSA continues to get wiped out, it might no longer matter what anyone calls the ('good') rebels. For what remains is likely to be foreign Terror Gangs - the very criminals the 'War on Terror' set out to defeat. 84.13.8.219 (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article doesn't mention at all anywhere that the main cause of this war is an Islamist uprising in Syria. Muslim Brotherhood tried to take over power from Assad on many different occasions through his family's rule, and it wasn't democratic neither peaceful takeover. Islamist idea of Syria being a sharia run Islamic state is nothing new, terrorism in Syria has a long history. It should be mentioned that those protests at the beginning of 2011 were mainly fueled up by the Gulf states and wahabi preachers. There were also armed men among the protesters. This is not a scenario of bad, dictator Assad vs. good, peaceful jihadists.

Islamist uprising in Syria, Aleppo Artillery School massacre (1979) Jisr al-Shughour massacre (1980) Siege of Aleppo (1980) June 1980 assassination attempt on Hafez al-Assad 1981 Hama massacre 1981 Azbakiyah bombing 1982 Hama massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC) according to the rules, then what you say. it *original research* and this is prohibited. you can only say what the source said. (The media say+++++ and source)Rqasd (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• but you can write an article about this (your words *Jihad and Syria*) you have to do a lot of authoritative sourcesRqasd (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As I've mentioned before, we need an article about the background of the conflict. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • hers is an article from feb 1993 could be useful for such an article, , seems fairly accessible brief background - [36], Sayerslle (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is the Palestinians section a bit biased - it reads like the Palestinians are basically grateful to assad regime -but[37] ' Palestinian camps in Syria were with the revolution before the revolution. We never forgot [the 1976 massacre in] Tel al-Zaatar [refugee camp, when a Syrian invasion of Lebanon allowed right-wing militias to kill thousands of Palestinians]. We never forgot the role of [former Syrian President] Hafez al-Assad in Lebanon against the Palestinian resistance and the camps. - hafez al-Assad was friends with Frangieh etc -I just read a book about how the Syrian backed Amal murdered the people in Bourj al-barajneh in 1986 - yesterday as well as the british surgeon the regime murdered Hassan Hassan, a Palestinian activist from Yarmouk[38] the section is too pro-regime imo Sayerslle (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is undue weight. Everyone has killed Palestinians at some point (including many of those who back the "revolution", Jordan and the Kataeb combined have probably killed as many Palestinians as Israel). Syria has probably killed the least. And whoever was backed by whom is completely irrelevant, if they didn't do the killing themselves. The US backed the Lebanese Forces and co. during the Sabras Shatila massacre, I don't see anyone blaming them directly. Furthermore, secular Palestinians are battling Islamist Palestinians in Syria now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'secular' - that is so phony, - versus Salafists, - it was 'secular' to kill the Palestinians in Bourj al-Barjneh in Beirut in 1986, it was 'secular' of Assads Syria to aid the Phalangists at the Tel al-Zaatar massacre - it's to defend a 'secular' state , to torture a british surgeon to death - I guess one just has to edit directly the article with good RS - discussion when views of reality and history are so divergent is pointless. Sayerslle (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please quit the irrational rant. PFLP are secular. Hamas are not. What is it you don't understand? FunkMonk (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Check what Assad is doing to Palestinians (and Syrians) in Yarmouk refugee camp [39]' - its you ranting on with your phony buzzwords - its the realities that count - what did hafez do in reality in Lebanon etc supporting frangieh, and the maronite Lebanese Front- - what is happening now at yarmouk? - in reality - Sayerslle (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article from The Daily Beast: [40]

"Last week, the FSA renamed itself the Syrian Rebel Front (SRF), representing 14 different factions. With Turkish government go-betweens, it has been seeking to find some common ground with the hardline Islamist groups. But few believe that renaming the FSA will change the fortunes of the more moderate rebels—ones not wedded to the idea that a Sharia law-based Islamic government should replace Assad’s regime."

From that point on in the article the mainstream rebel group are referred to as the SRF, not FSA. But I can't find many other sources reporting this, besides this article from Arutz Sheva: [41]. --Tocino 02:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

>> Hezbollah: March 14 on same footing as terrorists>> Brahimi says Iran could attend Syria talks >> Turkish police raid charity aiding Syria>> Al-Qaeda slaughters on Syria's killing fields>> Al-Qaeda fighters kill Syrian rebel leaders>> Al-Qaeda disowns ISIL rebels in Syria >> Free Syrian Army fires military chief *>> Syria army captures village in Hama province>> The destruction of the idols: Syria’s patrimony at risk from extremists (Lihaas (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)). What's the news? FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would the editors who have been co-writing sections 2.7 up to 2.10 now please start condensing those? We’ve been kindly asking you that for seven weeks now, by tags on 13Nov, 24Nov, 16December and 20December2013, and in many discussions, during that period and earlier. --Corriebertus (talk) 08:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is continued (pro-shortening) on 16 January 2014 by two colleagues, in section: Talk:Syrian Civil War#Length. Further comments please overthere. Corriebertus (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a specific lack of a section regarding media coverage (natl. and international) of the conflict. I propose that this section, or perhaps subsection (under 'international reaction'?) be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BipolarBear0 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

support this , it definitely has highly biased and partisan interpretations. That is local media and international media. The West, Russia, Iran, Gulf Arabs...most interesting would be Lebanon. Needto mention al manar and daily star and its ilk,.(Lihaas (talk) 00:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Yes, I support that too. In the far past, we’ve had a subsection ‘Domestic response’. This later evolved into sub-subsections ‘Censorship’ and ‘Propaganda’ which, to my opinion, now are wrongly located in Civil uprising phase of the Syrian civil war. At 23 October 2013 on this page, I already suggested (under point 2) to take those two subsections out of that article, and form them into a new: Syrian Civil War#(Domestic)Censorship and propaganda. (Apparently, nobody of the editors objected: see Talk:Syrian Civil War/Archive 31#Section 2 (Events): five chronology-problems.) It seems allright if we want to call that: Syrian Civil War#Media coverage, which then can be split into: National, and International. Corriebertus (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

S o after coming off a block, immediately a user suprreses opposition action and at the same time adds comndemndation of the government that he clearly opposes. A permanent topic ban in light of his temporary topic banners is in order here(Lihaas (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

This is probably the wrong place to bring that up. Try the admins' noticeboard. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Lihaas: I think, you've partly won that argument (or fight) with Sopher99 already, by your edit on 21December. That other bit of Sopher, condemning the Syr. government, was written not-neutrally, as you rightly protested. I've refrased it more neutrally. The facts given by Sopher there were okay and relevant, though. --Corriebertus (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Institute for Near East Policy says Saudi Arabia (surprise, surprise), Libya, and Tunisia are key. 86.129.4.149 (talk) 15:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the subtitle "foreign militias" is relevant for the pro-Government militias like Hezbollah and PFLP-GC (as well as IRGC). There is no doubt they are not genuine Syrian forces, but neither is Iranian IRGC. Further more, since the Syrian conflict is increasingly spilled into Lebanon, there is no more relevance for the "foreign" or "local" regarding the main conflict in Syria and massive spillover in Lebanon (see incidents like this). In addition, generally in infoboxes we don't write "foreign/local", so "foreign" is irrelevant.GreyShark (dibra) 11:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, perhaps I'm a little bit stupid (foreigner as I am), but you're making your point rather complicated. Could you simplify your problem, or question, or dilemma? --Corriebertus (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not just the comment you mentioned, but many Wiki Talk remarks (some concerning relatively minor-issues) are at times overly-involved. Also, the rules are a little complicated and prevent others getting involved. 92.17.177.112 (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Al-Jazeera aritcle(29May2013) there are 1700 Hezbollah soldiers in Syria.
According to Reuters article (29May2013) there are 3000-4000 Hezbollah soldiers in Syria.
According to WashingtonInstitute article (5Dec2013) there are 3000 Hezbollah soldiers in Syria.

Hezbollah have total 20,000 soldiers. Its not possible for them to send 10,000-15,000 soldiers in Syria to defend Assad. Dailystar.com.lb is anti-Hezbollah website of Lebanon, controlled by Future Movement. If anyone think there are 10,000-15,000 Hezbollah soldiers in Syria please give authentic source like BBC,Reuters,CNN,RT etc. ThankYou SpidErxD (talk) 22:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thats in times of peace. Besides, most hezbollah being sent in are young and inexperienced, aside from their commanders. Ie many of them are not in Hezbollah's 10k - 20k standard. Many were also newly trained in Iran, along side the shabiha. Sopher99 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You again fail to provide a source for his speculations. Was it grabbed directly from Twitter? FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The most up-to-date (recent) information should be posted, not out-of-date (old) info. EkoGraf (talk) 07:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2013/12/06-private-gulf-financing-syria-extremist-rebels-sectarian-conflict-dickinson
86.179.38.188 (talk) 18:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A user wants to add countries providing nonlethal support to the infobox. This is against what was agreed upon in mediation. It was agreed that instead we add a note that went something like this: "(For other forms of foreign support, see here)"--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Future. This issue was dealt with long ago. EkoGraf (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find anything about the shift away from Syrian National Congress and Free Syrian Army towards Islamist groups during 2013 or about Syrian regime's contention that it is
"a beacon of stability and secularism against rebels ... insists are foreign-funded Al Qaeda jihadis bent on turning the country into a strict Islamist state,"
and how it is becoming closer to reality,
or its self-fulfilling nature
(Birke, Sarah (27 December 2013). "How al-Qaeda Changed the Syrian War". New York Review of Books. Assad has done all he can encourage the impression that the rebels are foreign-sponsored "terrorists" attacking the regime. And he has helped that come about. Syrian lawyers have documented how in the early weeks of the revolt, the regime let out Islamist prisoners from Saidnaya prison—probably to foment radical Islamism within the opposition.).
This is a major issue and should be mentioned in the article. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This conspiracy theory fails to explain why the FSA welcomed the Islamists with open arms, and why the Saudis/Turks/Qataris are supporting them, if they are really Assad's "stooges". Pretty much fringe. But put it in for all I care, it will do nothing other than further inter-rebel distrust. Ironically, ISIL supporters accuse the Islamists who fight against them to be akin to the pro-US Sunni "Awakening" movement of Iraq. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple of sentences to the lead from a der Spiegel article , the article contained the following - "Around the beginning of the Syrian uprising, in March 2011, Assad once again released jihadists from the country's prisons. Simultaneously, tens of thousands of Syrian students, liberal activists and human rights advocates began being arrested. Their fates were recently documented by Human Rights Watch, which alleges that many have been detained arbitrarily, tortured and subjected to unfair trials." future trillionaire removed this calling it POV material - it seems to me it is either true or untrue, but the material can not be 'POV' - whether they were released or not, that can not be a 'point of view'. so I think the removal of this material is either ideological or just stupid. to lurch wildly into calling it a 'conspiracy theory' is also an ideological aberration- the article should assemble RS sourced facts - is this a fact or not? did this happen or not? Sayerslle (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The juxtaposition is obvious POV and fringe. But as I explained above, if you want to seed further distrust among your precious pets, be my guest. FunkMonk (talk) 10:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'juxtaposition' is pov - was it simultaneous, or not - if it was , its a fact, not a 'juxtaposition' - as for 'fringe' thats a matter of discernment, its been highlighted in many RS, - though I can ( its all too too obvious) see why you would need to see it as 'fringe' - don't want any note of dissonance in your pat, sectarian world-viewSayerslle (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIL was personally founded by Assad, and the FSA and the Saudists walked straight into the trap by welcoming them with open arms. Sounds good, put it in. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Funkmonk, the sentence about Assad releasing Jihadists seem to imply that the rebels are from the start influenced by Jihadists.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They were, and that is not what I object to. It is the conspiracy theory that Assad created ISIl that makes me laugh. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what it implies in your head is nothing to do with anything - its about what RS say about the civil war. Sayerslle (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, whatever you say. As I've said four times now, add it if you like. You and these silly "analysts" are confusing a pretty clear strategy of divide and conquer with a ridiculous conspiracy. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A few points.

• By "forest" I meant (in part) some discussion of why the regime, and the (various) rebel forces (claim) they are fighting. By "trees" I meant the individual battles, clashes, incidents, that have made the article so long.
• Whether or not you agree that the belief/suspicion/whatever that al-Assad regime release of Islamists prisoners was done at least in part to strengthen Islamist forces (vis-à-vis the more sympathetic (to the west) non-Islamist forces) and thus add credence to the regime line that it is "a beacon of stability and secularism" fighting "foreign-funded Al Qaeda jihadis bent on turning the country into a strict Islamist state",
  • the release merits at least a brief mention
  • and the regime line merits mention (and, of course, the rebels line(s)). I couldn't find any mention of it (them) in the article.
• I snicker at conspiracy theories as much as the next person, but surely a regime that sees fit to use napalm, artillery, dozens and dozens of air strikes of "barrel" shrapnel bombs on civilian targets, is not beyond releasing violent, dangerous political prisoners in hopes of messing up the opposition and alienating the West from that opposition. --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several former Guantanamo prisoners ended up fighting (and dying) in Syria. Conspiracy? And how are airstrikes, artillery, etc. on "civilian targets" any different from what basically every single other government that has fought terrorists hiding in civilian areas has done? *Cough* Israel *cough* America *cough* Russia. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"According to the United Nations, the death toll surpassed 100,000 in June 2013, and reached 120,000 by September 2013" --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

just stick with significant RS facts. they are what belong in the article. analysis of the facts between editors is neither here nor there. Sayerslle (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A random fact, and Sayerssl of all people saying we shouldn't discuss off topic? I don't follow. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2 sides of one fascist coin [42] Sayerslle (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, not sure where to start, all the usual suspects are there. Now Lebanon (owned by the Hariri family/Saudi), Elizabeth O’Bagy (confirmed liar), Michael Weiss (arch-Zionist). So much for "neutral" sources. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

is the article just a pack of lies then? even I wouldn't say everything snarwani and fisk and Cockburn and Russia today and press tv write is 100% lies and propaganda. close though. 00:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Anything with O'bagy's name on it can be safely disregarded. And please quit bringing up sources that no one is even adding, your constant red-herrings are getting annoying. FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

everything I add . like the derspiegel ref, gets removed , - this about torture should be in the lead [43] Sayerslle (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Ghraib isn't even mentioned in the Iraq War lead, how about fixing your own wars first? Or I guess it's more amusing to play with other states as if they were ant farms? Less close to home. FunkMonk (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'to play with other states as if they were ant farms'?? this is a Wikipedia article and I argued a sentence about the release of islamists by ASsad in 2011 including 260 from sednaya should be in the article. my last comment was the[44] 11000 torture photo story should be in the lead . is it ok to meddle in Syria if you are Russian or Iranian? you are ultra-sectarian, face itSayerslle (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So how many Russians and Iranians do you see editing this page? What I find weird is people like you and Sayer who somehow find it entertaining to play war here, while ignoring the crimes of your own states and their allies. I'm not sure what sectarianism has to do with being against American, Zionist, and Saudi hegemony in the Middle East. By the way, the Saudis are funding these Islamists, does that mean they're allied with Assad? Lol. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the Zionists and Saudis and americans - your banal explanation for all that is wrong . like the Saudis are responsible for ghouta (ludicrous snarwani's explanation)- what I find weird is that you believe you are progressive while you are just an ultra-sectarian with a decades out of date rhetoric - anyway , notforum. the article must mention the release of Islamists in spring 2011 imo. Machiavel, not a leftist, your bashar. - reporter asks, according to translation, 'why don't you shell ISIS? Why do you shell the people?' [45] - 2 sides of a fascist coin that's why.Sayerslle (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I was against your army's toppling of Saddam Hussein's "Sunni led regime" as well. How "sectarian" does that make me again? Who do you think you're fooling with your constant red-herrings? Hussein resisted the American-Zionist-Wahhabi axis as well (sent missiles against the latter two, how I wish Syria would do the same), and paid for it with his life. Are you contesting this? Baffling. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

“It is spread out over too large a territory to have any kind of impregnability,” said Aymenn Jawad Tamimi, a researcher at Oxford university and fellow at the Middle East Forum, which closely follows developments in Syria and Iraq. […] “Isis’s opponents have laid their cards down on the table in terms of their real and very genuine opposition,” said Charles Lister, an expert on Syrian rebel groups at the Brookings Doha Centre. “If Isis launches a counteroffensive it could have the capability to really weaken the armed opposition.” On Tuesday, various Syrian rebel groupings continued their days-long offensive against the group, sparked by the execution last week of a popular doctor in Aleppo province, as Iraqi troops attempted to fend off its challenge in western Anbar province. […]

“Without the Syrian uprising, the resurgence we see in Iraq wouldn’t happen,” said Valerie Szybala, who monitors Isis for the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think-tank. […] But according to experts the group’s behaviour, rather than its ideology, turned other groups against it. For example, it rejected the arbitration mechanisms set up to resolve differences between the kaleidoscope of armed groups in Aleppo and Idlib provinces. “What they’re upset about is that Isis refuses to consider itself a faction among factions,” said Aron Lund, a specialist on rebel factions at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “They say ‘we’re a state and we run our courts’. Isis never compromises and doesn’t accept outside mediation.”

The rebellion began after the discovery of the body of Hussein Suleiman, known as Abu Rayan, a physician and commander of the powerful the Ahrar al-Sham rebel group. Several groupings of rebels, including the recently formed Syrian Revolutionaries Front, the Mujahedin Army, and the powerful Islamic Coalition, a confederation of seven rebel groupings, joined together to attack Isis positions last Friday. Though the slaying of Abu Rayan was seen as the catalyst for the action, Saudi Arabia, the US and others have long been pressuring other rebel groups to take on Isis, and the confrontation puts a more palatable face on the Syrian rebel movement just two weeks before a major conference on Syria in Switzerland. […] “Whilst the number of opposition victories have decreased over the past year, all the ones that have succeeded have been spearheaded by Isis,” said Mr Lister. “A weakened Isis will be beneficial to the regime.”

86.179.38.188 (talk) 19:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current configuration of the infobox is illogical. Currently the Syrian government is in one column, the Syrian opposition and Islamic State of Iraq and Syria share the second, and the DBK is in the third. This is the case despite the ISIS being at war with both the opposition and the DBK. Meanwhile, the opposition and DBK have had only relatively minor skirmishes.

This configuration groups together belligerents at war with each other, and separates others who are mostly on the same side. It is clear that something has to change here, and the way I see it, there are two options:

A: Have three columns, one with the Government, one with both the opposition and DBK, and one with the ISIS.

B: Have four columns, one for the Government, one for the opposition, one for the DBK, and one for the ISIS (though I don’t know if this is even possible).

Personally I find A the most appealing, as it depicts the major alliances most neatly (the skirmishes between the opposition and DBK can of course be noted). What do others think? --Philpill691 (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Kurds have only been fighting the opposition the last year, and ISIS and other Islamist groups still claim to be allies in spite of skirmishes, so I disagree. FunkMonk (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Philip. Second of all ISIS is soley fighting against rebels. Lastly ISIS has killed more rebels in the past week than rebels have killed kurds during the entire conflict. Sopher99 (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS fights the army all the time. And again, the other rebels still claim to be allied with them. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Funkmonk and disagree with philip. The balance has not shifted enough. Msybe we can start having this conversation one year from now, but this is way too premature. Pass a Method talk 22:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So far 419 PYD fighters have been recorded being killed. As of today 302 rebels have been killed by ISIS. When ISIS killed more than 419 rebel fighters, we will either relocate ISIS or relocate the DBK in the infobox. Sopher99 (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Death tolls are not the determining factor here. If they were, it would make more sense to put the Kurds under the government column, as the YPG has clashed with government forces much less often than with rebel groups. But that might make it seem like the rebels were too anti-minority for your taste, now wouldn't it? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current version, with the domestic opposition groups and Kurds in one column and ISIL in another, is a marked improvement. Ideally, we could have four columns, but the skirmishes between the Kurds and the FSA, Islamic Front, etc., have been very minor compared to the full-fledged war between ISIL and both the Kurds and the domestic opposition groups. It seems fairly accurate to consider the Kurdish groups and the other domestic opposition groups to be co-belligerents, though not allies. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's "accurate" to consider the Kurds and the "domestic opposition" to be even generally aligned, you clearly haven't devoted much time to following that dimension of the conflict. The YPG spends probably as much time fighting groups like Ahrar al-Sham and Liwa al-Tawhid as it does ISIS, and the SNC basically takes the position that the PYD is in some sooper seekrit alliance with Assad. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not this time. ISIS has fought with rebels more in this 1 week than ISIS has been fighting the PYD in the entire conflict. Sopher99 (talk) 00:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with my comment, good try though. ISIS has directly cooperated with rebels (and vice versa) for many more weeks and months than not, and the infobox is supposed to present more than just a current snapshot. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, ISIS and many of the rebels were former allies. The PYD and the rebels were rarely if ever allied. It's unclear how long the current infighting will last. Changing the infobox now is a little premature.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has actually followed what the rebel groups say, they use very cautious language when referring to each other, and still consider each other brothers, though with difference. Claims about ISIS being pro-Assad, or FSA being an "awakening movement" are just unofficial rumours. FunkMonk (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thats has nothing to do with the facts. More rebels have been killed by ISIS than PYD soldiers. The fighting has been more widespread between ISIS and rebels.

Also lets stick to what sources say.

Syria's three way war http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrias-threeway-war-free-syrian-army-rebels-fight-the-regime-and-now-the-islamists-9052660.html

New syrian war front http://news.yahoo.com/jihadists-kill-31-rebels-syria-172021964.html

Sopher99 (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop vomiting up old arguments and pretending like they're new by throwing in some lazy, spur-of-the-moment sensationalism. Oh, and do note that neither source even mentions the word "Kurd". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... they are not supposed to mention the word kurd.... Syria three way war and New Syrian war front both refer to how ISIS is now part of a three way war and is a new syrian war front - both legitimate reasons for to put ISIS in its own column. Sopher99 (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are supposed to. If they don't, how the hell can you even try to use that as a justification for shunting Kurds into the same column as the groups they have been fighting for around a year now? A quality source will discuss all major parties to the conflict if they are seriously trying to describe the alignment of sides. What you have shown us is that journalists like to weave creative headlines to get audience attention, nothing more. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how you disregarded even clearer sources for months when we wanted a third column for the Kurds. This is too premature. Give it some weeks/months. FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look back at the arguments I made when we were discussing the kurdish debate. THe fact that no source describes the kurds as apart of a three side war was one of the main points I used against the idea. So the points I made above actually highlight my reasoning against the kurds being in a third column. Sopher99 (talk) 23:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Complete bullshit, as usual: "pursuing their own path distinct from both the opposition and the regime" "powerful third force" "The three state solution: Divide the country into three, following the ethnic lines of the major combatant groups ... creating an Alawite, a Sunni Arab, and a Kurdish state. "'Third point in the revolution': Syrian Kurds carve out an enclave between the Assad regime and the rebels" etc. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Only the powerful third force one has any relevance. The rest talk about intentions (per the distinct path and three state solutions) and enclaves. Christians and druzes also have enclaves. Third point in the revolution does not describe another combatant. Sopher99 (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I support the fourth column suggestion,but if this conflict ends with a truce then leave ISIL as co-belligerent ,but if it continue on,a 4th column would be reasonable,Kurds and rebels need to be separate for sure.24.0.210.152 (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC) This is me alhanuty.[reply]

They are separate. What we're talking about is ISIS and other rebels. Many other rebel groups have fought each other at some point, it is way too early to know if this is just a fad or will continue. We'll have to wait a month or two, just like we did with very other major decision. FunkMonk (talk) 04:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a fun game (à la Sopher) that we can play with "sources". Let's see how many sources describe this as "infighting" (i.e., "fighting or disagreement among the members of a group or organization"). We'll just key in the magic words "rebel infighting" syria into Google News, and presto! 11,000+ hits. We get descriptions like "internecine conflict among various rebel groups" "worst infighting yet between the armed opponents of President Bashar al-Assad" "fighting between rival rebel factions" "Rebel-on-rebel fighting between an Al-Qaeda-linked group and other forces" "Infighting among Islamist anti-government groups" "most serious rebel infighting since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad began" etc., etc. What we have here is a massive body of evidence which shows that most sources don't view this as the sudden emergence of a new side, but rather fighting between members of the same side. Thus, our current portrayal of ISIS—split from other rebels with a note explaining its hostile relations with similarly-aligned groups—seems more accurate, per the sources. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting Kurdish groups are also considered rebels. Typing in "Kurdish rebels" and "Syria" yields 148,000 results.

The correct terminology for your point would be "opposition infighting" which yields only three source as far as I can see supporting that claim. Startribune, todayszaman, and newser. Sopher99 (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who are these "Kurdish rebels" rebelling against according to your sources? Islamists or Assad? Also, "Kurdish rebels in Syria" could obviously refer to those who fought Turkey across the border through the decades. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lothar - this is in the guardian today :"Stories are rife about the release of Salafi prisoners and the Syrian armed forces supporting the Islamic state in Syria and the Levant in its attacks on other anti-Assad rebels." - the article should keep apace with this element in the evolving RS narrative where it is appearing more often imo. per the sources , yes, but per up-to-date sources [46]is important - I agree with Philips suggestion that opened this thread. Sayerslle (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You forget the alternate narrative, that FSA and their allies have been repeatedly told by the West to disassociate themselves from Salafists, otherwise they would not receive support. That is what we are seeing now, and that is why ISIL is labelling them an "awakening movement". They'd rather deal with the FSA now than later. And yes, Assad is exploiting the situation, like any tactical person would. FunkMonk (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that I agree with Funky's, Passamethod's, Lothar's and Future's comments. ISIS has clashed with the Syrian Army on more than one occasion (hundreds of times), has been a sporadic ally of the opposition for almost a year, the Kurds have never been an ally of the opposition, and the Kurds have in fact clashed with other elements of the opposition and not just ISIS (for example Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham and some other units of the Islamic Front), incidents of Kurdish fighting against Assad have been less than half a dozen since the start of the war (so again they are most certainly not aligned with the opposition, although they are not aligned with Assad ether). So the current format/template of the infobox is good enough, no changes needed, no need for a fourth column. EkoGraf (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is exactly what I came here to say... I really think there should be 4 columns in the infobox, at the present moment ISIL is in no way more aligned with the main opposition than the Kurds are. They may have a common enemy in Assad but their short and long term objectives are totally different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.71.207.195 (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is MUCH too long per WP:Article size and needs splitting off. Instead of warring we can discuss here the trimming. Yet at the least a requisite link to another page should suffice as at 200k on a majority of global computers this is slow loading be it pro or anti government.Lihaas (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

We need a "background" article to dump the first sections and other stuff in, per Background of the Bahraini uprising (2011–present). FunkMonk (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello colleagues. Probably I agree with Lihaas and Funkmonk (although sometimes I’m not sure what L and F are precisely trying to say). I guess we should strive towards approx. 100k as length. Section 2 takes up around 40% of the article or more; it should be seriously summarized, and the long versions be “dumped” (cf FunkMonk) in subarticles. Many times I and others have, for months, politely asked those who have been contributing to sections 2.7 up to 2.10 (Nov2012-Dec2013) to seriously condense those subsections (see Talk:Syrian Civil War#Request to our war writers on 1 January 2014). They haven’t complied, yet. Which, I suppose, gives all other editors the right to try and start summarizing those sections. Corriebertus (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We just need to cut it by 18k to the 200,000 byte recommendation wikipeida has. Sopher99 (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As Lihaas says and I agree: 200k is much too long and slow loading/reading on most computers. Wikipedia:Article size#A rule of thumb recommends: "> 100 kB almost certainly to be divided". Where in Wikipedia is Sopher's recommendation of 200k? Anyway: even 150k would be a great improvement, I'd say. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should put sections 2.1 through sections 2.11 into a timeline article. That would eliminate most of the problem. Sopher99 (talk) 19:37, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up around 4.5k of purely unneeded stuff from the article. To be honest, we could probably get down to 200k if we just look at the references and find identical articles on sites that use shorter URLs than some of the longer URLs on here. But I agree that I think we need to be more pre-emptive rather than reactive. Split the article now and then we won't constantly have to try and get it under 200k. Jeancey (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sopher: Timeline-articles exist up until December 2013 (as indicated in the headings of the subsections up until sect. 2.9). So it's just a matter of moving much detailed info from here to those Timeline articles, and leave summaries in this article. Corriebertus (talk) 06:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historically there has been a great deal of backlash when the detailed info gets replaced by summaries, or the summaries end up being longer than the detailed info ever was. Hopefully this time it will be better. Jeancey (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The readable prose size is only 89kB. WP:SIZERULE says an article size of between 60 and 100kB is not too big of a problem: "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion that may be faster to do before doing the trimming/splits (since what material gets split/trimmed may cause debates from time to time). Although the article does need to be trimmed, badly, references also contribute to an article's size. Currently there are 491 references. A properly formatted reference may take up to 200-300 bytes which means that references could actually be contributing up to 1/2 or more (491 x 200 = 98kb) of the article's size. Most refs are only used once and I can't help but think that at least a good portion could be used for multiple citations and thus would allow us to cut out a lot of the then "unneeded" refs. I'm going to try to find some and make the appropriate edits, but I don't have the time to do it all myself. Just a thought, perhaps I'm being naive. Coinmanj (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good idea in principle, and many of the refs are the second or third reference for a line, but again, we have historically faced a huge amount of edit warring when this is done, due to a perceived bias against certain sources over others. I invite you to try and figure out some references that can be removed though. Also, it would probably be good to go through and double check that references with listed ref names are being used more than once, cause if they aren't being used more than once, then the ref name param isn't useful or needed, and that could add a couple thousand bytes to the article if there are a ton of them. Jeancey (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://twitter.com/arabthomness/status/424598586291003392/photo/1 It is a good one.81.58.144.30 (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given all the set-backs for the 'moderate' rebels - this is good news. And yet, just about a year ago, the Syrian government was about to be defeated. At least, that is what the media were reporting. 78.147.81.78 (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the map, it does seem to be a good one. I quite like the colour designations as well, which are more precise than the ones used on Wikipedia. Esn (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Twitter is not a reliable source. FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it seems to agree well with the one on Wikipedia, only it gives more precise factional breakdowns. Esn (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to drop it on this page. Maybe you could do that?81.58.144.30 (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have permission from the maker of the map, that would be a copyright violation.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He says everybody feel free to use this map for your own purposes81.58.144.30 (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that the Syrian Army article lists a "220,000 to 280,000" active personnel figure, which is significantly different than the AP report used as a source for the infobox on this page. Why is this? On a related note, I was wondering about editors' opinions as to the accuracy of this article from an Assad-friendly website, which gives a description of the SAA. If all the given numbers there are summed up, we get 293,000 - over 100,000 more than the AP report but closer to the estimated numbers in the other article. What's the real state of things? Esn (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian troops are not all involved in the fighting, about 80,000 troops are station to counter a foriegn invasion from Turkey/Israel/Jordan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.230.122 (talk) 20:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

>> Most Syrians back President Assad, but you'd never know from western media(Lihaas (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Likely correct (at least in the sense that most Syrians prefer the regime over the "opposition"), but probably can't be used here, since it is only an opinion piece. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting this poll is 2 years old. If someone wants to report it, the BBC version[47] whould be WP:RS. The BBC digged into the survey, and discovered there were only 98 respondents from Syria (all online, so atypical), a very low sample size for the "55% of Syrians think that Assad should stay" conclusion. The 1000 respondants were Middle East wide. Rwendland (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

should have democratic elections then shuoldnt he? lihaas, assad can't lose - jonathan steele is like Robert fisk , apologist for regime - assad clan been ruling the country for several decades hasn't it? -look at hafez in 1991 - 'control of the electoral system

about 1991, he had just been re-elected for another 6 year term - an incredible election victory - 99.66% of the vote " -if hes so popular why doesn't he allow free media etc- why so determined to control everything, lihaas? - Gilbert Achcar - "a background of huge social inequality, a very corrupt regime – where Bashar Assad’s cousin became the richest man in the country, controlling – it is widely believed – over half of the economy. And that’s only one member of the ruling clan – all members of which were gaining huge material benefits. The clan functions as a real mafia, and has been ruling the country for several decades. "-every time funkmoti, lihaas, punxkid, tourbillon, etc etc add any edit its always love for regime - if admins never warn these editors that there is a need for an attempt at least at neutral editing articles will get made progressively worthless over time - admins, please , step in sometimes over pov issues , not just civility. Sayerslle (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, you and Sopher should start working according to the rules instead of edit-warring and POV pushing with biased sourcs, so you don't get blocked indef and leave editing to us evil Assadists.FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

first time I came across you was you editing in a dishonest pov way - don't lecture me- read Carl Gustav Jung - you're projecting mate. Sayerslle (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, didn't you know Assad pre-emptively created Wikipedia to discredit the Syrian opposition, in case of a revolution? He hired me personally early on, roughly the same time he hired al-Baghdadi. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you're so witty. kills me. Sayerslle (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's all we Shabiha are good for: kills by machete or bad jokes. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

or kills by cynicism - "Most of the important people in these extremist groups were in Saidnaya prison, not just Zahran Aloush. There were many of them and the regime let them go very deliberately," the former intelligence officer said." Sayerslle (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... And then the opposition welcomed them with open arms for some reason, and the Saudis and Qataris armed them. No one forced them to. Furthermore, the Islamists are the best fighters of the opposition, FSA would had been extinct long ago without them. No one has done more damage to the regime than the Islamists. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what the regime says, versus, what the regime does - "Bashar al-Assad is one smart mass murderer. He has been saying all along that he is fighting al Qaeda and not a revolutionary movement of the Syrian people while at the same time letting al Qaeda leaders, many of them known terrorists and murderers, out of his prisons so they can provide "leadership" to the al Qaeda like groups, the ISIS and al Nusra, that are proving to be a boon to him and a plague on the democratic opposition. Assad also has a practise of bombing Syrian civilians in schools, hospitals and breadlines while leaving the camps and headquarters of these groups untouched." you agreed it was 'divide and rule' - that's called cynicism, not 'fighting terrorism' Sayerslle (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you (and various "analysts") are conveniently ignoring my obvious points above. Answer me this: Is Saudi Arabia allied with Syria?FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is iran? is Russia? I believe Saudi Arabia and Qatar are talked of as hostile to the assad regime. iran and Russia are significant backers. this section is about how popular Assad is in reality - fine, so have a democratic election. its over 40 years of house of assad and power does have a tendency to corrupt - (I personally believe that is an 'archetypal' rule, nothing personal against any regime.)Sayerslle (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so if Saudi Arabia is against Assad, why do they fund ISIL, Nusra and the likes, if these are apparently Assad's puppets? FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

do you accept the regime is cynical torturer regime? as for the rest, i don't know , maybe sectarian hatred and idiocy is blinding them to the way they aid their rivals - but reality continues whatever, look at twitter, 3 hours ago 'Charles Lister ‏@Charles_Lister 3 hrs

Pro-ISIS sources claim an ISIS suicide bomber just carried out a large bombing in Anadan, #Aleppo, "killing many apostates.” #Syria Charles Lister ‏@Charles_Lister 3 hrsPT: That reference to “apostates” was intended to suggest members of the “Sahwat” - i.e. Islamic Front, Jaish al-Mujahideen, SRF etc.- ' - imo Assad/ISIS are two sides of an extremist , torture/murder/authoritarian coin - that is not the same as saying 'allied' Sayerslle (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, always diverting attention away from the questions you can't answer. Anyhow, do you accept that Syria has a less "tortuous regime" than your own country? And where's Tippy with his "hats"? FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

torturer/tortuous, I think your English is bad there- - what questions I cant answer? why is Hezbollah terror good to you but Sunni terror bad? why? oh, yes, the arc of prgressive axis of - bullshit. Sayerslle (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot the question? Let me repeat and simplify: If Assad somehow "created" ISIL, does that mean their main backers, Saudi Arabia, is allied with Assad? And I had no problem with "Sunni terrorist groups" when they still fought Israelis and Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. But now they're basically serving America and Israel, because their sugar daddy Saudi Arabia wants them to (always to weaken Iran), so I have no love for them. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and torturer Assad[48]- you still have love for the regime? ISIL thinks it is its own state or something ? like a rival to Saudi Arabia , or a trans-nationalcaliphate -? thePFLP-GC seem diabolical, - what is their origin? I know its not a forum,- its a morass Sayerslle (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you still can only post links to random blogs written by biased nobodies, and not answer the nagging question. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and you just brush off mass torture, you have to be 'somebody' to be listened to - power worship 'gone mad'- manipulating extremists, cynically releasing terrorists - this is not saying 'established' and 'created' - it is a ***collusion kind of thing.The relationship between al Qaeda and the Syrian regime is not new. "In September 2007, U.S. forces in the northern Iraqi town of Sinjar, twelve miles from the Syrian border, discovered computers and a cache of documents that included the records of more than 600 foreign fighters who had infiltrated into Iraq between spring 2006 and summer 2007. The documents show Syrian involvement in facilitating the entry of jihadists/Islamic terrorists into Iraq to frustrate what the Syrian regime dubbed as the "American Project in Iraq". Sayerslle (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol at your constant derailments. Your country is the leading world expert in "mass torture" and brushing off civilians as "collateral damage". That is a fact. And don't forget your allies, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. I don't see you getting your knickers in a twist and playing Wiki-hero over that. FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- 'its all foreign manipulation' is what hafez said too, this thread lihaas, the pro-Jobbik bloke (why is Assad so very popular with European Nazis btw? - fascists of every kind love him)- anyway - lihaas said Assad is very popular, so, fine, just have free democratic elections . - I am british - is my country a 'leading world expert' in mass torture? - anyhow, two wrongs don't make a right -warontherocks article recommended by Charles Lister on Assad/AQ talk[49] Sayerslle (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good job with the constant derailments. I guess it means you have no actual counter-arguments, so I'll just stop it here. FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i'll just stop here too then -[50] Sayerslle (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Link: [51] Ratipok (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In house supporters of the 'good' rebels please note: According to the above link it is clear that the vast majority of Human Rights abuses have been committed by the Free Syrian Army. 78.147.90.191 (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[ Concerning section 5 : Opposition parties : ] It's obvious ISIL and FSA are at opposite ends. ISIL and supporters should be a separate section Armynut15 (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that editors should read past discussions before starting new ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_Civil_War#Infobox FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

classy...Armynut15 (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We'll simply revive the discussion. 1500 fighters have died between the two groups, a greater recorded death toll than the battle between ISIS and kurdish factions. Both ISIL and FSA leaders as well have been killed between the two.

The conflict is much more widespread between the rebels and ISIL. All these reasons are good for altering the infobox. But don't take my word for it, lets gather the sources. Sopher99 (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

source gathering , [52], and a skeptical take [53]Sayerslle (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, this needs a couple of months before we can do anything drastic. They still claim to be allies. Unlike the Kurds and any other faction. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

-- this is just source gathering [54]Sayerslle (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole conspiracy theory thing has nothing to do with the columns, so please spare us. Though it is ironic that Americans would point to Syria letting Salafists into Iraq in the past as evidence for a current alliance. Seems like they forgot how they helped the Jihadis in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Does that mean they were allis during 9/11? Ridiculous. FunkMonk (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

is this relevant? 'ISIS has taken a clear & definitively anti-SMC (& SNC) stance in its reaction to Sheikh Moheisini's "Umma Initiative” [55] ' from Charles Listers twitterSayerslle (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even FSA is "anti SNC", so no.06:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

and anti-SMC? Sayerslle (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISIL is waging a full scale war. The 'alliance' can be considered over.Armynut15 (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We dont need to wait months. ISIL is certainly opposed to the FSA [56]...and now even al qaeda have disowned them.[57]Lihaas (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We still don't know what it means in the long run, so yes, we'll have to wait. Hezbollah and Amal, both Shia groups, fiercely fought each other for some time in the 80s in Lebanon, yet no one would put them in different rows in the Leb civil war infobox, because they were mainly aligned. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[58] - the point is to try and represent the reality[59] as reflected in RS - anyhow the Lebanese civil war infobox may have been written up by pro-Hezbollah or hafez assad lovers and be quite misleading for all we know Sayerslle (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. Why not by pro-Lebanese Forces and Menachem Begin lovers? Reality is still that theopposition groups claim they are allies. Until they don't, that's what matters. FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with FunkMonk. ISIS is still at war with the Syrian government. Just in the last few days they have been fighting around Safira. All the sources you put forward of possible Assad-ISIS connections are just speculations, a definite connection has not been proven. The current double line separating the ISIS from the rest of the rebellion is enough. EkoGraf (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's some actual context, instead of the usual conspiracy crap: http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/al-qaeda-and-isis-renunciation-abu-bakr-al-baghdadi FunkMonk (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'actual context' from al-akhbar ? - that's snarwani territory, sectarian propaganda - [60]- theres you tube on joshlandisblog -'why wont you bomb ISIS?' Omraan al-ZAubi is asked [61] - ISIS serves the regime [62]Sayerslle (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, Akhbar is sectarian? It is left wing, with secular writers from all sects, Sunni, Shia, Christian, from all over the Arab world, including states where basically everyone is Sunni. But of course, I shouldn't expect an average American would know anything about Middle Eastern news sources. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

what does Akhbar say about Yarmouk? (i'm not an American -i'm british)- its like in the camp wars - assad /Syria/ (Iran) murders Palestinians and has diabolical ludicrous 'left wing' fanboys Sayerslle (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike your favourite Gulf owned media, it actually shows several different opinions, and writers are allowed to disagree with and criticise each other.[63][64][65] FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary on Joshua Landis' blog, which is pretty firmly in the opposition camp by now: http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/truce-isis-suqour-al-sham-mean-end-syrias-inter-rebel-war-daniel-abdallah/ FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose a new column since both the opposition and ISIS have Assad as a mutual enemy and comparing the intensity of the clashes between them and between the rebels and the Kurds is irrelevant in my opinion because they are both somehow similar ideology-wise and the Kurds are generally in a defensive mode unlike the rebels and ISIS. That's in addition to the numerous truce agreements between them which somehow hints the conflict between them could end soon, contrary to the conflict both have with the government. The Lebanese Civil War had almost all factions fighting each other (Maronite vs Maronite, Maronite vs Sunni, Maronite vs Shiite, Sunni vs Sunni, Sunni vs Shiite, Israel vs Sunni, Israel vs Shiite..etc) but we still don't see a 4th column there. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fsa-isil clash Sayerslle (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why have we not addressed child soldiers at all in this article? I believe in would be a good idea to put it under the impact section. The rebels routinely enlist child soldiers on the front lines to fight the government.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/syrian-child-soldiers-rebels_n_2210427.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9711971/Syria-using-child-soldiers-as-young-as-14.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:4647:AC04:0:21E:C2FF:FEAC:F52F (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be WP:BOLD.Lihaas (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it puts the opposition in a bad light. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we not list every method being employed by the opposition? Aren't we listing every known method used by the government?--Metalhead94 ^{T C} 18:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UN on abuse of children - [66] - 'Children in Syria have been tortured, maimed and sexually abused by Bashar al-Assad's forces' - [67] Sayerslle (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FSA leaders abuse their own grandchildren.[68] FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And oh: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syria-isis-jihadis-publically-strangle-girl-death-not-conforming-sharia-islam-graphic-images-1436502 FunkMonk (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the latter half of the third paragraph in the lead creates some POV issues. It now seems to favor the rebel side. Thoughts?--Metalhead94 ^{T C} 18:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

article? do you mean paragraph? can you be specific at all?Sayerslle (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was a type-o. They happen. I meant to say paragraph. And yes, I know the difference between a paragraph and an article, obviously. I've edited the comment. I was referring to the third paragraph of the article lead. And Although I don't mean to sound rude, can you be less snappy and smart-mouthed?--Metalhead94 ^{T C} 20:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't see where §3 ('According to...', etc.) is 'favoring' anything. It just tries to state facts as they are written somewhere in the article below. By which I don't mean to say that the lead section is very good and very useful for every type of Wiki-visitor. If, for example, you might find some paragraph too much spun out or too much repeating itself, you are welcome to summarize it shorter. There's a good chance we will appreciate such edit -- provided you give a clear and honest edit summary to go with your edit. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC) --Corriebertus (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that enough time and evidence has passed to make the info box 4-sided making the Islamic state in Iraq and sham the fourth side.Alhanuty (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• We have two sections about this already. Keep the discussion there. Constantly creating new sections doesn't change what has already been said. FunkMonk (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am just proposing,it and fine I will.Alhanuty (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read the threads upstairs Alhanuty, it has already been discussed. Sidenote, yesterday's ceasefire treaty between the IF brigade and ISIS once again casts doubt on the need for a fourth column. EkoGraf (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al nusra is at war with ISIS. Time for a change in the infobox. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/02/10/Islamist-rebels-oust-ISIS-from-Syria-s-Deir-Ezzor.html

Their has already been greater casualties and more widespread fighting between ISIS and rebels than between rebels and Kurdish factions Sopher99 (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should we soon move the regime and the FSA into the same column? http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/119098-syria-army-rebels-agree-new-damascus-area-truce FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no - [69] Sayerslle (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those desperate rumours explain why the FSA are making truces/surrendering in droves to the Syrian army. Great observation, Sayer. And great Saudi-sponsored source, too. But back to reality: "According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, rebels and regime loyalists have even set up joint checkpoints in some areas such as Qudsaya."[70] Checkpoints against who? FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think the 'Foreign involvement' section lacks detail and or clarity?, to me it reads as:

Both the Syrian government and the opposition have 'received support, militarily and diplomatically', from foreign countries.

Government 'received support, militarily and diplomatically', from x,y,z.

Opposition 'received support, militarily and diplomatically', from x,y,z.

That is everyone support everyone, which IMO doesn't offer the reader a concise summary of the involved parties and the extent of their involvement.

2. Considering that we have special articles on Iranian support for Syria and Russia's role. The coverage seem to be a little bit unbalanced. Also iirc most countries didn't got involved until it became a sectarian war and Iran was there from the very start. Also I believe that Iran(its proxy Hezbollah) and Russia are the only countries that has troops stationed or fighting within Syria(though my info might be outdated). Also how the extent of the financial involvement(direct or indirect) of the various parties compare?

3. Shouldn't the international community involvement in the Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons‎‎ be noted as well? ( i don't see this article linked anywhere else)

4. On the map shouldn't Russia be noted as part of countries that support the Syrian government?

--PLNR (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please, friend, write understandable English (and therefore not: "iirc"...??! etc.). Anyway, regardless of whether you are right or not in your signaling certain problems in that section: the section ought to be a summary of Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War. So I advise you: start improving that 'main article', and then conclude your work by improving the summary in section 9 of Syrian Civil War. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose this for the "Generals and leaders" section in the infobox because it is more informative that way and is necessary for readers to understand who the belligerents are. Not all commanders have pages linked to their names so i believe this would be suitable in this case.
I also suggest we remove Adnan Bakkour from the rebels' list because there is no need to add two former commanders of Liwa al-Tawhid. Just one would do and Abdul Qader Saleh appears to be more notable. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New section needed for the cost of the war itself, not just the effect on the economy. Here's a usable article [(1) ] nov 6th 2013, bit old. regardsLugnuthemvar (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a garbage post. Does anybody not realize that the SAA is the main fighting force and not shabiha. Change it you partisan thugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.210.58 (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually some BS. Can we just call it "mostly between Shia and Sunni" without going deeper into the details in the lede? --Emesik (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you offer any WP:RS before you challenge a UN report. I recall many source the charactrized the conflict as such, moreover it is reflected not only in the lead but in the article itself --PLNR (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not challenging the UN report, just the claim that the conflict is between Shabiha and Sunni groups. It should be mentioned it is mostly Shi'a-Sunni, nothing more. --Emesik (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The report is outdated in any case, the so called "Shabiha" groups have been merged into the NDF. And the main fighter is the Syrian Army. Neither are sectarian, and have many Sunnis, Druze and Christians. Most Syrian soldiers are in fact Sunnis, like most of the government. FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://m.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2014/Feb-21/248012-hezbollah-channels-european-mercenaries-to-syria.ashx 94.197.120.95 (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too few and insignificant to warrant a mention. 23 fighters, are you kidding? FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could breifly mention in the sub pages. As for this, it needs trimming big-time. Although a better source is needed. Th is is [arguably] biased, and its report merely cites speculation: "March 14 officials received security information ", "According to the one Eastern European country’s intelligence unit," "According to well-informed sources"(Lihaas (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

• "March 14 officials received security information" That alone makes the story suspicious. FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is called a proxy war by many RS: [71][72][73](Lihaas (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

You mean it should be mentioned in the introduction, right? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Lihaas is in love with the beautiful word 'proxy war'? So what? Why should we mention where in the article that for example (Lihaas' first link) the totally obscure website www.salon.com enjoys calling this war a 'regional proxy war'? --Corriebertus (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the term "proxy war" is very appropriate in this case. Noting suggests that Salon is an obscure website and there are other sources calling it a proxy conflict → [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I introduced the term "proxy war" to the lede about half a year ago, but it was removed by someone believing in grassroots-revolution myth. Anyway, it is still valid. And with US and Russia playing their parts, it is definitely not a "regional" proxy war. --Emesik (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not regional because the US is involved. But Russia supports a government not a proxy rebel group. Iran is the one involved in the proxy conflict with the US, not Russia. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A government can be a proxy e.g. Iraq-Iran(USA/Soviet). In this case the idea is that Russia and Iran are extending its sphere of influence by Arming and supporting Assad. On the other hand you have the Arab League and various Nato members, who support and arm the rebels to topple Assad. Personally, I think we should start with improving the Syrian Civil War#Foreign_involvement and go from there.--PLNR (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but i still think the lead needs a mention of this term. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a proxy war, with a heck of a lot more players than just the US and Russia (Saudi, Iran, Turkey, Qatar, etc.) but it is many other kinds of conflict as well. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some might argue that their support is all what keeps the war wheels turning e.g. Iran analyst with Five Dimensions Consultant. "Well placed sources tell me 'the syrian army by now is a joke, they are in charge of the minor things. Without the Iranian they would have collapsed by now'." [84] that plus 15Bn in financial support, Hezbollah fighters, and Russia substantial contribution, kept Assad in power. While the other side was slower to react and not as active (especially in the last couple of month with ISIS), they wasn't idle by any means and now with failure of the peace talks there is a lot of talks about united frtont to support their "kind" of opposition.--PLNR (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the same token, the insurgents would have been extinct long ago if Turkey didn't let them operate across the border, if Islamist foreigners weren't joining them en masse, and if they didn't get financed by the Gulf and the West, etc. Not to forget the media war by Qatar and the West, which escalated the conflict early on with their exaggerated/modified narratives. FunkMonk (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that if most sources don't define this as a proxy war, it would be undue weight to put it there. Emphasis on most. A quick google search of "Syrian regime" and "nazis" gives me around 5 good sources on just the first page. Doesn't mean we add a "wars involving nazis" category. Sopher99 (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What an inane comparison. My quick search on "Syrian regime" and "elephants" just gave me 2.190.000 hits. "Wars involving elephants" category? Context is quite important, don't ya think? Many sources say this is a proxy war, and this is not mutually exclusive of any other kind of war. FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, what kind of analogy is this? And since when do we rely on Google hits while we have more than enough RS calling it a proxy conflict? Even 5 sources like that would do just fine. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I mention hits? I said 5 good sources just on the first page. Read people. Read. Sopher99 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how "good" the sources are, if they do not provide the context you claim. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

isn't it about time that stupid map showing ISIL in control of more than half the rebel areas got replaced with something more recent? using this old map which reflects the situation only two weeks into the conflict between ISIL and the rebels gives the wrong impression to the uninformed, who will think the front lines are still structured this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.33.113.252 (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is becoming a bit of a joke that Israel isn't mentioned a bit more prominently, considering their constant attacks on Syrian interests, one more just yesterday.[85] Furthermore, Netanyahu has just shown his direct support for injured Syrian insurgents:[86][87] FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It occurred in Lebanon http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26332089

You can put the attack here: Syrian Civil War spillover in Lebanon Sopher99 (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is that not a part of this conflict? (and yes, its me again) I don't expect you to admit you're wrong, but still, somebody ought to point out the absurdity of your position. -- Director (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]