Template:Pbneutral Template:Not a forum

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

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

Template:Rtne

According to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377, the General Assembly can sanction Syria or authorize military intervention if the Security Council cannot agree on a resolution. Why the responsible members of the international community don't realize this confuses me. The only reason the UNSC cannot agree on a resolution is due to weapon sales to the Syrian regime from greedy Russia. If Russia wants to be an influential member of the international community, being greedy and selling weapons to violators of international law is the wrong way to get there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.197.206 (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

I hav counted over 20 articles about events during this uprizing. One set of articles deal with specific incidents (like the 2011 Damascus bombings). The other set deals with events that hav happened in a certain city/province over a long timespan. I think the articles in this second set need to be renamed. A lot of them hav names such as "Siege of Homs" and "Siege of Idlib province", which arn't very accurate and seem to lack sources. We shouldn't be uzing such names unless they'v been widely uzed in the media. Furthermore, how can a whole province be under siege? To me, a more sensible name for theze articles would be "Homs during the Syrian uprising" or "Idlib in the Syrian uprising".

I think the articles should be organized like this:

One set of articles about specific incidents that hav a definit start time and end time. This inholds the following:

• Siege of Daraa
• Siege of Baniyas
• Siege of Talkalakh
• Siege of Rastan and Talbiseh
• Siege of Jisr al-Shughur
• October 2011 Jabal al-Zawiya clashes
• Battle of Rastan
• Homs airbase ambush
• Syrian-Turkish border clash
• Turkish pilgrim bus attack
• 2011 Damascus bombings
• al-Midan bombing
• Battle of Zabadani

One set of articles dealing with all major events in each city. This inholds the following:

• Rif Dimashq blockades (if this can't be greatly expanded then it should be merged into other articles)
• Siege of Homs (should be renamed “Homs during the Syrian uprising” or something similar)
• Aleppo clashes (should be renamed “Aleppo during the Syrian uprising” or something similar)
• Siege of Hama (should be renamed “Hama during the Syrian uprising” or something similar)
• Siege of Idlib province (if this can't be greatly expanded then it should be merged into other articles)
• 2011–2012 Idlib clashes (should be renamed “Idlib during the Syrian uprising” or something similar)
• Siege of Deir ez-Zor (should be renamed “Deir ez-Zor during the Syrian uprising” or something similar)
• Siege of Latakia (should be renamed “Latakia during the Syrian uprising” or something similar)
• Damascus clashes (should be renamed “Damascus during the Syrian uprising” or something similar)
• 2011-2012 Daraa Province Clashes (should be renamed “Daraa during the Syrian uprising” or something similar)

Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 01:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without commenting on the specifics, I think your effort is laudatory. Sorely needed. This article is also now too large, and needs to be trimmed yet again.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But how to split? The timeline is split by season which I think is arbitrary. I mean, what is the point the list is trying to make? To prove the obvious fact that the event lasted a few seasons? It is not like US history where the president inauguration is the natural boundary. We need to rely on articles that are devoted to the whole event to help us find out how they group details and filter out triva events. --Skyfiler (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are split into three months each because wikipedia pages are not allowed to exceed 200,000 bytes of info. If the entire timeline was one page, it would be 400,000-600,000 bytes of info. Its done for convenience, if a page becomes too big, it slows down the editing, hurt's wikipedia servers, and makes it tough for readers to navigate.I7laseral (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep on topic everyone. You should start a new discussion if you wish to talk about the length of the article. ~Asarlaí 11:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is not the name, since "Siege of <placename>" or "<placename> protests" is widel used in the press. In my view, the wide scope articles are encompassing several events, so split was a good solution for few of them already (i helped to split some, like the Battle of Zabadani, split from Rif Dimashq blockades), but not on the others (like Siege of Homs). Aside from splitting, there is much confusion between sieges of cities and clashes and protests within provinces of the same name. Example is the city of Idlib and the wider Governorate of Idlib - all in the same article.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The uprising has already produced some advances of the opposition in the Idlib and Rif Dimashq provinces, taking over some villages and towns, as well as 1 city. The battle for Douma is ongoing. I think instead of protests image in the infobox we need a more descriptive conflict map, as it was in the Libyan civil war. I must emphasize that it doesn't mean the article must be renamed to civil war or anything.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The map would be so innacurate as to be utterly useless and a waste of time. There is zero reliable information coming out of the country, and the army crushing a few hundred rebels in damascus or homs does not constitute a fight for either city. This is simply a seek and destroy scenario, the syrian army are the ones crushing dissent, there is no organized army that is fighting back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.41.94 (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I actually would rather wait to it becomes a recognized civil war. The situation on the ground is too ambiguous for a map, especially because countless areas that we don't know about are in FSA and/or protester hands. Additionally Assad does not hold territory, rather the Syrian army just moves to any area it feels defectors are gathering too much force. Sopher99 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The FSA only does hit an run attacks, meaning territory is constantly changing street by street. Sopher99 (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not really possible. Access to Syria is completely limited, we know that some villages in Idlib, Deir el-Zor and other provinces are out of government control but we do not know which and even if we knew we have no way prooving it. Take Zabadani for example, we know that it is under rebel control. However according to activists it is such for about 2 months. We had no idea for 2 months about this town, nor had we any sources. Creating map for this conflict is currently impossible. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. If it is (or becomes) possible to create such a map, I think that it would be extremely helpful. I believe we faced some of the same challenges with the Libya map, and yet we managed to address them. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support As more reliable reports come out of areas under the control of anti-Assad elements, such a map would help to centralize accounts of who is in control of what, even if these accounts are not comprehensive or current. Neumannk (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I believe when we still classified the Libyan civil war as an uprising, we used a map, and it shows where certain areas are in support or controlled by either side. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 03:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support A map would help illustrate the extent of the conflict in an easy to read, easy to understand way. The Libyan map also started with a large amount of gaps in information that were filled in as events developed. It was still worthwhile with a few gaps in information. - 86.41.38.98 (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support The map could at least demonstrate the current death toll for each city/town, regardless of 'territory' held by anyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.43.149.84 (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Map is a great aid for the visualization of the conflict. --antiXt (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Except for Rastan is not a loyalist city, it was retaken by the FSA a few days ago.Goltak (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support IMHO, references for the details should be discussed on the Commons image talk page, with meta-reference to the main article and timeline pages, where most of the references should be found, and the referencing method should be clear in the Description etc. section of the Image page. The title debate can wait until the main Wikipedia article title debate (uprising vs civil war) is closed - there's no point having two parallel debates about the same issue - and this is mostly irrelevant for the image itself - most readers won't notice the file name (i've seen academics attribute authorship of images used on the Wikipedia as (c) Wikipedia, despite this being obviously wrong after a few clicks and careful reading). Boud (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There's really no verifiable information upon which to base such a map. It would just be a pointless exercise of conjecture. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The map would be based on death tolls that vary widely and conflicting reports of bombardments. In the Libya situation there was at least reports of cities changing hands that could be mapped but this is not the case here. Putting data in graphical form is not worth while if the data is not good. XantheTerra (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to write a section on this topic. But have found myself writing a rather long piece (sort of 6 paragraphs) just around these 2 main articles OneTwo What does everyone think? Does this merit a section of it's own? Or simply a mention somewhere? AKhani84 (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it with 2011–2012 Idlib Governorate clashes and just create a new section just as we created new section for Ramadan massacre in siege of Hama article. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Jabal al-Zawiya massacre is more notable than "Ramadan massacre", because the first is a specific event, whereas "Ramadan massacre" relates to escalation of the uprising in general across Syria in the month of Ramadan. I think it deserves a separate article, to be split from 2011–2012 Idlib Governorate clashes, but for now it can also be made a section there and later split, when more info is available. If i'm remembering correctly, some 33 people were killed in the massacre?Greyshark09 (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was 111 people actually. Goltak (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question for the editors of this page to start thinking about, at what point, or ever, does an "uprising" turn to a "civil war"? I was reading an article in the New York Times [1] which is calling the uprising a "fledgling civil war." What rubric should be used to determine when, if ever, this page should be renamed. Thinking this out now may save alot of frustration later.--Found5dollar (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONNAME, however this criterium is right now questionable as sources call it both uprising and civil war. If you want you can request a move of page to 2011-2012 Syrian civil war. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We use the name that reliable sources use for the conflict. Organizations such as the Red Cross have explicitly said that according to their definitions, this is not a civil war. Other authorities such as the UN, and major media outlets such as CNN, do not use the term 'civil war' for this conflict either. Therefore, neither does Wikipedia. EllsworthSK, we've already had numerous move requests to this effect and they have all been turned down for the reason I just gave. I do not believe it is wise to encourage people do make another such request because that will inevitably fail as well. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It should be renamed into civil war. Because it is a civil war now basically. Protests are now a footnote compared to armed clashes. The situation has developped into a full insurgensy, with opponent regrouping in divers militia and insurgents groups. A new move request is necessary--ChronicalUsual (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is it that you do not get about WP:RS? - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of reliable sources call it civil war [2] --ChronicalUsual (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those mainly seem to be saying the conflict is "escalating into" / "inching towards" / "sliding to" / "at risk of" civil war, that civil war is "a real possibility", that there's "danger of" a civil war, that people "warn of" civil war, etc. etc. Not many sources actually call it a civil war at this moment. And, as I wrote earlier, articles saying that the UN brands the conflict a civil war are mistaken. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, even ChronicalUsual agrees with me. As for WP:RS quick Google News search shows us that in past month 1410 sources used this words in this or that context [3], you also based your arguments on fact that opposition holds no ground, now they control 2/3 of third biggest city, unknown number of districts in Hama, majority of Rif Dimashq (Damascus countryside) governorate, major part of Idlib governorate and also control parts of Deir ez-Zor governorate. This isnt anymore just civilian uprising (even though civilian protests against government continues) and that is why 15 minutes from Damascus center there are checkpoints manned by FSA fighters with AKs and RPGs, why in past month security forces casulties tripled and why USA is evacuating its embassy. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Hama Massacre was not called a civil war yet the muslim brotherhood held the city of Hama before the massacre began. 40,000 civilans, mbs, and soldiers died, all in the period of 1 month. Here 7,000 died, in the period of 11 months. I7laseral (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a civil war. The Hama battle was not a civil war, it was a battle during this civil war. But the actual insurgency of muslim brotherhood lasted years, not one month. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But wikipedia does not label it a civil war, does it? I7laseral (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are a big reason to make a new vote on a possible change of name. During the observer missions, the FSA gained ground while the Syrian Army had to leave the cities in order to comply with the plan. Now, they are holding some quarters in various cities. But it seems that this time the Syrian army is lauching a massive attack to retake full control, in Douma, Hama, Damascus suburbs , Homs. It clearly becomes more and more a civil war.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the observer mission had nothing to do with it, violence was at the same 30-40 civilians dead each day during the observer mission. The defection of Mustafa al sheik and the establishment of a command council within the FSA was the turning point for the FSA. Sopher99 (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Arab league in his official report said that the bloodshed was cut during their mission, and that the syrian army and their heavy weapons mostly left cities. When they visisted Zadabani, fighting stopped as well. And now that Syria has refused Arab league plan, the army is back on offensive in Hama, Douma, Ghouta, Rankous and the journalists who had been allowed in during the mission are sent back home. I find it hard to believe it is a coincidence. But anyway, it has no importance in the debate of calling this a civil war--ChronicalUsual (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The opposition have used armoured vehicles in Homs, and there are clashes between the FSA and government forces all the time. How can it not be a civil war when armed Syrian factions are battling each other? (talk 08:09, 4th February 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I do not know much at all about the topic of your article, I just dropped by to add the following template for you, which you may like

Template:Rtne

Anyhow, I notice that your lead section is a bit out of hand, may I suggest just add a new section called 'overview' to the top of the article, then cut and paste the lot into that new section, then write a plain language summary of the article as the lede. That may help. I added a redirect also, maybe there are others that are needed. Have fun ! Penyulap _talk 05:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are also google based less focused templates available, such as this

Kudzu1, why do you think this promotes an external site? Also why do you feel it's an "especially unreliable source" it's not a commercial site, although it might appear that way at first glace, it's actually government run as far as I am aware, so it's often better than google as a source in many respects. Penyulap _talk 03:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just the opposite. The Russian government is a staunch ally of the Assad regime, and RT has demonstrated a marked pro-Assad bias. It does not always provide accurate information; it's basically a watered-down Pravda for the digital age, in that it blends news and propaganda and expresses the political opinions of the Kremlin. By having a banner here, we call attention to and thus promote RT's deeply flawed coverage over that of other media organizations. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I am aware that every source of imformation in existence is biased by definition, but wasn't aware there were any strong concerns over this, please forgive me I know more about space stations and than I so about Syria, please, can you tell me what major news sources there are which would be a counter to this, I will be very pleased to make a searchbox for them as well if you like. The more good sources that are available to editors the better the quality of the article. I simply saw page after page after page of articles and thought this is a goldmine for someone. Penyulap _talk 10:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Battles ongoing all across Syria, there is no sense using the "civil conflict" infobox anymore.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's first await the result of the uprising vs. civil war discussion, shall we? - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really need to be called a "civil war" to warrant the military conflict infobox. See the Islamic uprising in Syria page. 48Lugur (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add sectarian killings to the characteristics/methods. That is neither part of the protest nor the fight against the government. Sectarian killings happen in Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen, but are not part of the uprisings there. The characteristics of the uprising are definitive and conventional methods of protest and armed opposition. Sectarian killings is not accepted by the opposition, and we have no way to prove that the opposition carries out sectarian killings. You can carry out sectarian killings against alawites and not be a person against the government, just a racist. Sopher99 (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also don't divide the sectarianism section into different ethnicities. That is biased, and strongly makes it look like the article is trying ot say Christians and Alawites as a whole aren't involved in protests. Sopher99 (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

or religion for that matter. Sopher99 (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the link I provided :

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/us-syria-alawites-idUSTRE81024G20120201

There are Alawis who are clearly being killed because of their religion. There are sunnis civilians that have been targeted as well. It did not exist before the uprising/civil war, the last time it existed was in the islamic uprising before.

Some oppositions leaders are endorsing it, like the islamist cleric in Saudi Arabia who wants "to feed Alawis to the dogs", or the one saying that all Alawis men are murderers. And there are Alawis who said that they will fight for their community.

We should not try to hide it. It is an encyclopedia, it does not mean all opposition members want that, just that sectarian killings are among the things happenning in this uprising/civil war. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, sectarian killing occurs in Egypt (muslims vs copts) Libya (Olbeidi vs Gaddafis) yemen (shia houthis vs sunni tribes) and bahrain (shia vs Sunnis). Sectarianism in Bahrain did not exist until the Bahraini uprising. Doesn't mean it is part of the uprising. Sopher99 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2 - Saudi arabia is Saudi Arabia. Syria is Syria. 3 - You can be a sunni who doesn't protest or take up arms against the government, but a racist who kills alawites. We have nothing that gives hardcore evidence that says the protesters or the free syrian army engage in sectarianism. Sopher99 (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Houtis revolt in Yemen existed well before the uprising. Muslims attacking Copts in Egypt too. But here, it seems that there is a clear link between the two. Some sunnis opposition members, mainly islamists, are taking on Alawis because of their domination in the syrian government. Alawis are taking on Sunnis because they feel threatened by Islamists. it is part of the event, (like by exemple islamists insurgency in Irak targeting christians, it did not exist before)

How can we say there are no links? Have you read the Reuters article provided? --ChronicalUsual (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"links" and "correlations" are not facts. They are independent research. Allegations. Sectarianism didn't exsist in Bahrain before the uprising. Doesn't mean its part of the uprising in Bahrain. The situation in Syria is near civil war. Of course tensions that didn't exsist before are going to pop up. Sopher99 (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the islamic uprising in Syria, killings against Alawis were common. It led to a massive crackdown on muslim brotherhood. Now , a new uprising/civil war is here and sectarian killings reappear. This is not independant research, this is how members of communities feels it. Also the cleric in Saudi Arabia is a syrian islamist who lives in exil since the crackdown on Muslim brotherhood.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if it is not done by the protesters, and it is not done by the FSA or the SNC, and if you can't prove it is done by the MB either, then it is not a method of the uprising. I want to hear what other people have to say now, no offense, but we are just repeating the last 3 paragraphs of the discussion. Sopher99 (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification, Al Arabiya is owned by the Saudi government, and is in no way non-biased.

"Al Arabiya was created to be a direct competitor of the Qatar-based Al Jazeera.[3] As a response to Al-Jazeera's criticism of the Saudi royal family throughout the 1990s, members of the Saudi royal family established Al-Arabiya in Dubai in 2002."

58.210.98.226 (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the Reliable sources noticeboard the consensus was that Al Arabiya was just as reliable as a source can be. It has an editorial board, and has been consistently reliable. Jeancey (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to common sense, Al Arabiya is as reliable as People's Daily, which has an editorial board. 58.210.98.226 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using your logic, Xinhua is completely unreliable due to being owned by the Chinese Government. Jeancey (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When quoting XInhua, it's always declared that the source is Xinhua, when there is conflict of interest involved. 58.210.98.226 (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, where is the consensus that Al Arabiya is "as reliable as a source can be"? The consesus seems to be "Al Arabya seems to have some issues (like so many other media outlets). That doesn't mean it can't be used as a source at all, but it needs to be used with special care. In particular when sourcing contested/controversial issues it might be a good idea to avoid using it and rely on media outlets with a better track record/reputation for unbiased, accurat, reliable and independent reporting. If something can only be sourced by Al Arabya that usually should already raise a red flag. "58.210.98.226 (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has just as many issues as any other news source. It's not always 100% reliable, but nothing ever is. Jeancey (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Arabiya is not State owned, just invested by the Saudi royal family as well as the UAE. There are no rules restricting Al arabiya, and the goverment does not appoint officials to alarabiya. Al Arabiya is not state controlled. Al arabiya is constantly quoted and refered to by other news media, such as CNN and AFP when such news sites are reporting on middle eastern affair. Barak Obama used Al arabiya to broadcast his speech in 2009. It is the second largest Arab news site in the world. I7laseral (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the source that "There are no rules restricting Al arabiya, and the goverment does not appoint officials to alarabiya. Al Arabiya is not state controlled."?58.210.98.226 (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...Asking that is like asking "where is your source that says CNN is not state controlled?" Its not state controlled, plain and simple. I7laseral (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear to be owned by a multinational collection of companies from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Lebanon and other countries in the Persian gulf. This would indicate that they aren't directly controlled by any government and that the government can't "appoint" anyone to the company. Jeancey (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well according to this http://www.linktv.org/mosaic/broadcasters/dubai

Al-Arabiya is an Arabic-language satellite news channel based in Dubai. It was launched in February 2003 by a group of Arab investors including the pan-Arab satellite TV pioneer MBC and Lebanon's Hariri Group. MBC is owned by Sheikh Walid al-Ibrahim, a brother-in-law of Saudi Arabia's King Fahd.

58.210.98.226 (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just because one investor has ties to the saudi royal family doesn't make the entire organization under the control of that family. Jeancey (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This entire discussion is pointless, because apparently the ip-user, who started it, doesn't have the slightest idea about the difference between reliable sources and the WP:NPOV guide line. There is ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM TO USE POV SOURCES in wikipedia! (as long as the sources are reliable and the article reflects all POV views). Al-Arabiya is reliable - end of story.Greyshark09 (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The report is adamant. There was no organized, lethal repression by the Syrian government against peaceful protesters. Instead, the report points to shady armed gangs as responsible for hundreds of deaths among Syrian civilians, and over one thousand among the Syrian army, using lethal tactics such as bombing of civilian buses, bombing of trains carrying diesel oil, bombing of police buses and bombing of bridges and pipelines.

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf

SHADY ARMED GANGS FINGERED FOR VIOLENCE, NOT ASSAD. FROM A REPORT SIGNED BY ALL BUT ONE GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL NATIONS (LESS QATAR). SAUDIS AND QATARIS MADE ALL EFFORTS TO SUPPRESS REPORT BUT WAS LEAKED ANYWAY. Drimidiri (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In some cities, the Mission sensed the extreme tension, oppression and injustice from which the Syrian people are suffering. However, the citizens believe the crisis should be resolved peacefully through Arab mediation alone, without international intervention. Doing so would allow them to live in peace and complete the reform process and bring about the change they desire. The Mission was informed by the opposition, particularly in Dar‘a, Homs, Hama and Idlib, that some of its members had taken up arms in response to the suffering of the Syrian people as a result of the regime’s oppression and tyranny; corruption, which affects all sectors of society; the use of torture by the security agencies; and human rights violations."

1 - The observers observe what is going on during their STAY, they are not authorized to investigate event PRIOR.

2 - The Arab League and its head Nabil Arabi confirms the killing of protesters by the Assad Regime. The UN, Human rights watch, and Amnesty International also confirm it. Journalists on the ground also confirm repression, including BBC journalists and CNN journalists. Yes journalists were allowed in this month.

3- over 100,000 videos posted on youtube and shared with conventional media confirms protests and violent repression of protests.

4 - The Arab League's observer mission head is a Sudanese intelligence general, with connection to the Darfur genocide. He was only chosen as the mission head ot calm Syrian government's fears of the mission. Arab League observers themselves said that the observer mission is just being used to "serve the regime". The observer mission was intentionally skewed as to be lenient on the Syrian government.

5 - The free syrian army only began taking territory and escalating attacks in JANUARY. What do you think happened from March 15 - December, when there was no major armed gang presence? Protesters were killed in mass by the Syrian army. And protesters they are still being by the Syrian army. Sopher99 (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the Arab League observers report should have its own section as it is the first serious work done about the situation in Syria with people on the ground.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large consensus for analysts, even amongst the arab league nations themselves, that the report is a tripe scandal used to divert attention from the need to carry out action against the Syrian government, the observer mission counts as peace proposal, and is included in the peace proposal section. Sopher99 (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem we should cover both the Arab League report, and reaction to it as reported in RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And the only real question as far as that goes for me is whether there's enough there to warrant its own page. Certainly both the report and reactions to it, critical and positive, should be noted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But We already noted in the article, both the report and the reactions and the observer defections and the Arab League's mandates. Sopher99 (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless discussion as wikipedia does not use primary but secondary sources. per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC EllsworthSK (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We use both; we just use primary sources with care.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really believe that in this case it is even possible to use such source "with care"? Realisticlly, without admin supervision it will become nothing more than a flame war in which every user will start taking parts of the report which suits him and use it in his own context and views. It happened in every single article related to this topic. Best to let it slide and use secondary sources. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since people were almost equally divided between moving this page to a civil war page, the status quo was achieved and the move stopped.

Instead, I created a new page, called Syria civil war, which has for goal to be the much needed article linking all military operations in the country, separated from the popular uprising, as it was the main objection for people again a move of this page. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't fork articles without consensus, this is useless.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We need a central article for the military operations. Right now the only link between all these operations is the infobox, not enough. The new page is useful.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh jeez, really? Please don't fork articles without discussion. I'm going to have to nominate it for deletion, which I: 1) feel bad about because I'm sure you put some work into it, and 2) didn't really want to spend my free time this morning doing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can nominate, I will counter it. No reason to delete, absolutely no reason. You can also ask for a move or a rename but you will need to achieve consensus--ChronicalUsual (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd really suggest refraining from deleting the AFD template on the page again. And I don't want a move or a rename, I want the article deleted. It's redundant, unnecessary, and spurious for the reasons I listed in the nom. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you to stop infecting wikipedia with your activism.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a new article with a title for which there is no consensus is considered POV-forking and is contrary to Wikipedia policy. The deletion discussion for the fork can be found here. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• On the one hand, I have sympathy for the view that the media is starting to use the phrase "Syrian Civil War". See, for example, Reuters and this editorial in the Financial Times. On the other hand, a change of that sort -- especially when it is controversial -- should wait for consensus, I would think. Yes, we will lag behind Reuters and the like, but consensus is the way of wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An image used in this article, File:A Collage of Syrian Martyrs.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Silver, Please stop. That quote only refers to further suffering of children. Unicef theorizes that more children could have died in Homs, but Unicef has too much difficulty entering Homs to confirm. The 400 children dead does not mean they all died in Homs.

http://news.yahoo.com/unicef-says-400-children-killed-syria-unrest-162328551.html

The article clearly states that its inability to conclude definitive facts in Homs only refers to the speculation of more children dead in the February Homs Bombardment. Sopher99 (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore the children were killed by Security forces, not "through the conflict". Stop trying to defend the regime.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/02/03/146346490/rights-group-says-syrian-security-forces-detained-tortured-children

Sopher99 (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The second article says nothing about 400 children killed by security forces. It just states that "Syrian security forces have killed, arrested and tortured children" but does not give a figure. You can't just arbitrarily combine information from two separate articles and decide that they fit together. The sentence "Over 400 children have been killed by security forces as well" should be changed to "According to human rights organizations security forces have killed, arrested and tortured children. In total, over 400 children have been killed in the conflict." or something equivalent.80.221.0.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I'll just remove the second reference. Sopher99 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to remind anyone eager to add alqaeda back into this page that we already had a long and fruitful discussion about this on the talk page. The discussion went on so long it was deleted by moderators. We concluded that all claims of alqaeda were unverified and did not belong in the Syrian uprising page, not least because we determined that even if alqaeda was present, it does count as part of the opposition or the uprising, as the protesters and FSA have taken positions against alqaeda. In the same way alqaeda opposes the Yemeni government but is not part of Yemeni opposition or the uprising taking place, so too did we conclude alqaeda in Syria, if confirmed (which it is not), is not part of the opposition r the uprising.

I say this because Mcclatchy, a new source which I don't even know if it is reliable or not, has caught attention for writing an article in which it claims US Intelligence members believe Zarqawi (alqaeda's new leader) is behind directly behind the Midan damascus bombing.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/02/10/138593/us-officials-al-qaida-behind-syria.html

One should not that the officials are unnamed, and therefore this report can be considered dubious.

Furthermore it is only what those officials suspect. Nothing is verified.

Lets just leave it in the protests and armed clashes sections. Sopher99 (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sopher99 first of all for your "Protests and armed clashes: ok but atleast put it in chronological order) (undo) " comment avoiding edit battle. We all try to "assume good intentions in others" like Wikipedia tells us but the stress is high in this situation when no one wants to accidentally help terrorists, or accidentally help regime brutality, or accidentally help cover up violent opposition, or (I hope) no one want to accidentally cover up what's embarrassing to Washington.

Thanks also for update on previous discussions. However this is much newer information, from a very well known source, and based on multiple analysts. You can find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_McClatchy_Company that this company is 150 years old and runs 30 newspapers...Nothing "proves" reliable...even New York Times was very unreliable in 2003 reports before invasion of Iraq..but is McClatchy estaslished? yes. Well known? Yes..

My point is we do not say "this is unconfirmed" about Syrian National Council statements, so we should not say it about this report by McClatchy either. when unnamed U.S. officials support the administration position, the reader knows (or should know) a possible disclaimer, and when U.S. officials contradict, or potentially contradict, U.S. policy, readers can exercise caution about the "contrarian". But it is analysis - analysis can be wrong or right, but that goes for all statement by named officials too, and by Syrian government, and by Syrian peaceful opposition or armed opposition.

Now as for chronology. We have A, B, C, D where D happened before C...however C and D concern Al Qaeda, so it makes sense to keep them together. These are the two paragraphs (4th and 5th from top last checked) I think the slightly off chronology is ok. But if it is bothersome, how about taking C and D into a separate section, Al Qaeda involvement?

Lastly this brings up your point. You are right, Al Qaeda is not part of the official opposition. Therefore it shold not be in a wikipedia page about the opposition. But the bombings (whether by Al Qaeda or by anyone else, it could be by aliens from mars or, in seriouslyness, by any group..) they are still part of the Historical Event of the uprising/civil war in Syria (there is clearly both: a peaceful brave courageous uprising, and also a rocket armed rebel fighters). So it is part of the article on the historical event: all major events, by any group, which are tied to the unfolding events (these bombings clearly meet this conditions) are part of the entry for that reason. Peace, Harel (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed then, we will keep any such occurrences in the historical event sections. Sopher99 (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is useless. Alqaeda is in every arab country for hte past 10 years, they don't need to be singled out just to serve the Syrian governments interests. I7laseral (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the opposition or not Al Qaeda is involved in this conflict, wether some politicians want to admit it or not. So they are part of this historical event as Harel has put it. If their involvement in this conflict continues to grow than the issue can simply be resolved by putting in a third coloumn for beligerents in the infobox. One the opposition, second the government and third Al Qaeda. Since both the opposition and the government are against them. Problem solved. EkoGraf (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mention it in the article, at this point it is not clear enough to add to the infobox. If these American documents themselves somehow slip out, sure, it changes things. FunkMonk (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This could perhaps mean something: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Feb-12/162941-al-qaeda-leader-backs-syrian-revolt-against-assad.ashx#axzz1m8TpOob0 FunkMonk (talk) 07:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zawahiri saying not to trust the west or arab governments? doesn't mean anything. But i think this may mean something. http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/02/05/192672.html

Anyway, discussion over. Sopher99 (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Not to trust"!? Eh, he's calling for all Muslims all over the world to go to Syria to fight the government. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qaradawi did as well. And so did pretty much every sheikh outside lebanon and Syria. Besides He already defined his opposition to the Syrian government in April. He also called for muslims to fight gaddafi. Not important. I7laseral (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, "every sheikh outside Lebanon and Syria" have not done that. With the emerging stories about the Americans actually knowing that Salafists are behind the Syrian bombings, but apparently holding the info back, this info will turn out to be significant in time. As for Gadaffi, Salafists did flood to Libya to fight from all over the place, so it was certainly important there. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not for us to decide if its important or not. Our obligation is to add it if its part of the historical event. EkoGraf (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an increasing amount of evidence about Al Qaeda or jihadists group involvments.

1) The Syrian governenent blames Al Qaeda for the suicide bombings. This not neutral, but it is a claim from one part.

2) Zawahiri fully supports the rebellion as claimed in his new video while Iran and Hezbollah have denied any involvment.

3) Iraki interior minister said that jihadists were crossing the border to fight in Syria with the rebels http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ieZhI-Ef6qIsGk1Rc48np5UVKBLQ?docId=CNG.08fe9711909c30405b5cb685b6d1bb03.811

4) US officials source blamed Al Qaeda in Irak for the bombings in Damascus and Aleppo http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/12/alqaida-zawahiri-support-syrian-uprising?newsfeed=true

It starts to be a lot of various reports coming from various sources to no be quoted. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already know salifis are involved. Duh. Salifis make up 20% the entire adult arab population. But just like the Yemeni uprising, alqaeda is not part of the uprising, just part of the historical events. For example, the battle of Zinjibar. Sopher99 (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qaeda is fighting to create an islamic state in Yemen. In Syria, they are fighting to help the syrians rebels to overthrow Assad. Zawahiri clearly stated that it was his goal. It seems that you don't like it, but if we stand by encyclopedia, source say that they are involved.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already determined that they are a third party to this. The opposition hates them. The government hates them

Actually the government does not hate them, because they released alqaeda's number one leader for operations against Europe from prison. SO i guess alqaeda is on the government's side. Pershmega supports the rebels, Hamas supports the rebels. Hezbollah supports the Syrian government. iran supports the Syrian government. If we put Alqaeda, we put in Iran and Hezbollah, and Pershmega.

Please. Enough is Enough. Sopher99 (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jihadists groups are the only one with reliable source of being on the ground --ChronicalUsual (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not true. You only have an iraqi minister to back you up. Once again. A claim. Sopher99 (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

American officials, syrian governement claims, iraki minister Zawahiri supporting the rebels. You are fighting the obvious here. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so now you believe american officials? Didn't american officials confirm that the syrian government was killing innocent civilians? I guess now it is 100% confirmed that government is killing protesters. I already knew it was true, but now we have to post it as fact.

Also we have dozens of sources, including propaganda new site russia today, saying iran and hezbollah are actively fighting the opposition. If we put in Alqaeda, We put in Hezbolah and Iran. Sopher99 (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah and Iran both denied it officially and the sources are nor various nor solid. Contrary to these one. You moving your defense line between "they are there but it is different" and "you have no source to say there are there". That's disturbing. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the sources are so various that it includes American and Russian news sites. Your sources are the ones that aren't solid. I am just being neutral. I am saying that salifis are present(they make up 20% of the adult arab population) but they are not noteworthy to count as a separate belligerent. Any way enough is enough, we already had a huge discussion like this one. Sopher99 (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I am removing that small tag someone added. Secondly, fact that there are salafists in Syria means nothing. They are also in France. Doesnt make them AQ members now, does it. Salafi are religious group, not an militia network under command of Zawahri. Thirdly - misintepreting original article, or even lack of reading it seems to be common here. Yes, we have report from reliable source. That one quotes suspistion of unnamed US officials (what could be basiclly anyone in US beuroctatic army), it does not say wether they are from DoD, WH, MoD, army or otherwise. Worth adding to article, but using as proof of AQ beeing side of the conflict? Hardly. As far as I remember, official US stance is that there is no concrete proof of AQ involvement. And lastly - Zawahri statement. Where exactly did Zawahri said that there are AQ operatives in Syria? Because I missed that part. Al Queda was supporting revolution in Egypt, in Libya and in Yemen. In one of these countries group linked to them has taken control over capital of Aden district. However when I look into Yemeni uprising page I dont see AQAP as part of the conflict. And good that you started with Hizbollah and IRGC discussion, number of reliable sources talking about their involvement is uncountable and its pretty obvious that HA and Iranian government deny this, AQ never said that they are operating in Syria either. So it´s seems little hypocritical from ChronicalUsual to write was he has written in this context. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are just using bad faith here. Zawahiri never denied involvments of Al Qaida, and top Iraki official said that the iraki jihadists were moving into Syria. Rumors of Hezbollah come from opposition and Hezbollah denied it.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Im just stating what I observed. And if you didnt notice, al Queda isnt exactly open for inquiries and interviews and is not state-running organization like Hezbollah. Zawahri is not answering questions and Zawahri never, ever said that AQ operatives went to Syria, nor we do have any evidence to make such claim, nor do reliable sources claim so. If you state otherwise source it. As for Iraq, they are Iranian ally in the first place and bytheway he says nothing about AQ but claims that according to his sources Syrian fighters which fought in Iraq are returning to Syria. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a major gun battle, in which three were killed and dozens wounded between pro-Assad and anti-Assad people in Tripoli, Lebanon. Is this part of the Syrian uprising or not?Ericl (talk)

No, they do it all the time, for whatever reasons. It could perhaps be mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Lebanese_protests#Spillover_from_Syria FunkMonk (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its a ripple effect. EkoGraf (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It happened six months ago as well, and even more people died, I have no idea why it's supposed to be such big news now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To keep this article neutral, and since nothing can be verified, we should provide counterclaims to every claim. As is, opposition claims are overrepresented throughout the article, which makes it POV. For example the "allegations of rape". Not a shred of evidence, apart from the claims of involved characters. But it stands unchallenged. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. It is very unbalanced and worst, there are some things wrote like facts when they are just presented by one activist source.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I Don't agree. This is the 2011-2012 Syrian uprising. Not the 2011-2012 Syrian government's uprising. Besides we already put claims and counter claims. We already stated that the government denies all charges against it. We all already put the governments version of the death toll. We put the government's version of the suicide bombing. We clearly stated that the government does not accept responsibility, and we clearly stated that the government believes terrorists are the only problem. What more do you want? Sopher99 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"27. In Homs, Idlib and Hama, the Observer Mission witnessed acts of violence being committed against Government forces and civilians that resulted in several deaths and injuries. Examples of those acts include the bombing of a civilian bus, killing eight persons and injuring others, including women and children, and the bombing of a train carrying diesel oil. In another incident in Homs, a police bus was blown up, killing two police officers. A fuel pipeline and some small bridges were also bombed. 28. The Mission noted that many parties falsely reported that explosions or violence had occurred in several locations. When the observers went to those locations, they found that those reports were unfounded. 29. The Mission also noted that, according to its teams in the field, the media exaggerated the nature of the incidents and the number of persons killed in incidents and protests in certain towns."

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf 58.210.98.134 (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why we don't include it is because there are so many parts that report that can be used for and against, it just turns into a flame war. Consequently we don't use firts hand sources like that. This has already been discussed. Sopher99 (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example, why don't we include this?

74. In some cities, the Mission sensed the extreme tension, oppression and injustice from which the Syrian people are suffering. However, the citizens believe the crisis should be resolved peacefully through Arab mediation alone, without international intervention. Doing so would allow them to live in peace and complete the reform process and bring about the change they desire. The Mission was informed by the opposition, particularly in Dar‘a, Homs, Hama and Idlib, that some of its members had taken up arms in response to the suffering of the Syrian people as a result of the regime’s oppression and tyranny; corruption, which affects all sectors of society; the use of torture by the security agencies; and human rights violations.

Further more the report has been criticized by arab governments themselves as not being serious or truthful. Sopher99 (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This report has been criticized because he did not suit Qatar and Saudi agenda of all blaming the governement and gave evidence of plenty of violence coming from the opposition. Anyway, both should be included to be neutral.--

ChronicalUsual (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article only has so much room. Can we please make a separate page already regarding the arab league report? Jordan Tunisia Morocco Libya also criticized the mission. Sopher99 (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ah yes, Morocco and Jordanian kings are champions of human rights.58.210.98.134 (talk) 14:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As is Sudan, Hazbollah, and the People's Republic of China. Sopher99 (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, armed rebels were attacking government troops before the so called Free Syrian Army was formed "Syrian state TV is reporting the deaths of at least 120 security personnel in battles with hundreds of gunmen in the north-western town of Jisr al-Shughour." from 6 june 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13672725 58.210.98.134 (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the opposition clearly stated that they were defected soldiers. The Syrian government never even showed any bodies. That is a separate argument, has nothing ot do with the report. Sopher99 (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

what kind of soldier would defect in the middle of a violent shoot out?58.210.98.134 (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you get it? there was no shootout. Defected soldiers were executed in mass , like in Idlib in December. Sopher99 (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop getting off topic.

Can we agree to make a separate article entirely compromising of the Arab League report? Sopher99 (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If first hand sources are a problem, cite analysis or other reporting. It's pretty easy. We don't need more forks on this issue. FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the theory that the terror bombing in Aleppo was perpetrated by the Free Syrian Army. The US government claim the attack was perpetrated by Al Qaeda to shift the blame from the rebels, making the public believe that Free Syrian Army is not responsible for killing civlians.58.210.98.134 (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have any news sources started to call the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising a civil war? 70.179.36.58 (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not yet. Jeancey (talk) 06:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times did about a week ago.Ericl (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there was i would hold off, because a probable peacekeeping mission may shut down any civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed peecekeeping mission will not happen since the governement already refused it. The situation is already a civil war between army and FSA.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, if you look into the archive to first discussion wether we should move article into civil war from November I presented about 3 sources which have already called it such. Here are newer [6][7][8][9]EllsworthSK (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is far from certain it will end up like Libya. (Both this article and the actual conflict. see Talk:2011_Libyan_civil_war/Archive_7#Requested_move_1_--_to_.22Libyan_Civil_War.22) SYSS Mouse (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Time Magazine has. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I7laseral, Multiple scholarly references have been given which you seem to not have read or not care about, referring to "no evidence". That is evidence: multiple respected scholars. I'm now adding a fourth refernece and will add more maybe, but you need to stop the policy-violating deletions/undos.

"It does matter if the professor mentioned it in his book, no evidence what so-ever. No witnesses to this, no leaks, no admission, and even the Syrian government does not accuse)"

1. I assume you meant "it does NOT matter if.."

2. "no leaks, no admission" Did you not read my previous Edit Comments? Former CIA agent Wilbur Eveland not only admitted it but said why the coup was carried out ("in order to obtain Syrian government ratification of TAPLINE")

3. "even the Syrian governmetn does not accuse"?

This is not particularly helpful or relevant; secondly, how do you know, unless you carried out a full serach of all statements by the Syrian government? Thirdly, which government? There have been many since 1949. Have you searched for records of government statements by *all* previous Syrian governments since 1949? I very much doubt it. In any case, it does not tell us very much whether (in *public*) the Syrian government (this one or previous) talks about this 1949 event.

4. "No witnesses to this"

If China used covert operatives to act against another country, would you or any one of us consider "no witnesses" to be a reason to say something didn't happen? Of course not.

This is the inherent U.S.-centric bias all of us must guard against: we cannot have one reasonable level of evidence "if China did it" like citing three scholars, but then turn around and have a completely different, far higher standard of evidence "if the U.S. did it"

Maybe the idea of a CIA operation is shocking, because they don't teach us in school about the 1954 overthrow of Guatemala's democratically elected president Arbentz Guzman (I see we do have 1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'état) or the CIA's involvement in the 1953 overthrow of the democratically elected Mosaddegh in Iran (see 4th paragraph of Mohammad_Mosaddegh). Perhaps you should read up on this background, and you'd be less shocked at this 1949 CIA coup. We Americans should find be embrrassing that we know so little of the history of our own government. As for the CIA supported coup in Syria, I am ashamed to say I did not know about it until relatively recently. But once we know, there is no excuse for bias on Wikipedia to protect from posting something embarrassing to Washington.

There are now provided three full references. This is more solid documentation than for most other things stated in this article. Maybe "more solid" is appropriate given the nature of this event, but then very well, this "more solid" level has now been achieved:

1. Joseph Massad, professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University. Published in Nov. 2011.

2. Article by Douglas Little, Professor, Depart-ment of History, Clark University, citing also declassified records. Article from May 2003.

(2.5) There is also a 1990 article by Prof. Little, in Middle East Journal, Vol 44 No 1, Winter 1990, "Cold War and Covert Action: The United States and Syria, 1945-1958" see http://www.jstor.org/pss/4328056 but only the first page is visible. Could still add as additional reference.

3. Now also a scholarly work by Irene Gendzier (http://www.bu.edu/polisci/people/faculty/gendzier/ ) professor of Political Science at Boston University, in her book published by columbia University Press in 1997.

Specific page, p. 98 is given, and is even viewable on books.google.com. There is additional information on the coup on other pages. Additionally as noted, former CIA agent Wilbur Eveland not only admitted it but said why the coup was carried out (in order to obtain Syrian government ratification of TAPLINE)

I can easily find another one, but don't want to over-do the references right now.

If you were not aware of the wealth of evidence, that is understandable, neither was I not that long ago.

nWhat is not ok however, is to have one reasonable level of evidence "if Chi a did it" like citing three scholars, but then turn around and have a completely different, far higher standard of evidence "if the U.S. did it"

What is not ok is for you to keep deleting *very* well multiple-scholar referenced facts like the CIA's role in the 1949 coup, and to just repeat "no evidence what-so-ever" over and over again, despite the copious amounts of evidence as just cited in journal articles (2.5), books and articles by prestigious well known universities, just because you don't like the facts: THAT IS VIOLATING WIKIPEDIA POLICIES. PLEASE STOP THESE DELETIONS (but I will add reference (2.5) and maybe another, just food good measure. Happy?) Harel (talk) 04:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please

It doesn't matter if a dozen scholars write in their article how they believe there were cia agents involved

Everyday, dozens of "scholars" and "reporters" write about how the USA is part of the illuminati, responsible for 911, is plotting a NWO, and worships Baphomet. Doesn't mean its credible.

You have no evidence, just a dozen people saying "the cia definitely did it". I can find 1000 scholars/historian/pundits right now who would say the USA was behind 911, does not mean we make note of it every time we mentioned 911.

I7laseral (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh, no--not "a dozen people". A couple of sources that appear to meet the requirements set out in WP:RS. Conspiracy theorists need not apply. Do not go down the road of treating every "source" as if it's of the same quality: some are better than others. Harel, in case of doubt, take this to the appropriate noticeboard--WP:RSN. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, not a dozen. Three. Joseph Messad, Douglas Little, Irene Gendzier. I7laseral (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, thanks for dropping by..I see you've identified exactly the false "I can find people who call themselves experts who say Bush and Obama are Martians, therefore, all journal articles can be ignored" arugm,ent he is making. Not all scholars are equal..I will ask onyour Talk page Drmies about use of the noticeboard. Meanwhile I will paste below the reply I had written while yours and I7laseral were posted, which got edit conflict so let's try again:

This is as silly as saying "I can find 100 scholars who say 911 was a conspiracy, therefore, I can ignore a dozen scolars who say that (name any historical fact here)" and therefore ignore any historical fact you like.

"""In fact, you cannot find 100 articles in peer-reviewed well-know established journals that "Bush ordered 9/11 attacks" or other such claims. You can find self-appointed scholars for anything.

But you cannot find 100 citations of peer-reviewed well-know established journals for serious historical facts, like this one. This has been done. Multiple times. When I click on the tab to see history, let me guess, you deleted again? If so, you are in violation of wikipedia policies. It may take me some days to get authorities to intervene, but your unilateral deletions of scholarly established journal historical accounts for historicl accounts you seem not to like, will not stand.

5th scholarly reference (and 4th separate source): André Gerolymatos, Hellenic Studies Chair, Stavros Niarchos Foundation Centre for Hellenic Studies, Simon Fraser University http://cgi.sfu.ca/~wwwhist/cgi-bin/viewfaculty.php?view=15 Castles Made of Sand: A Century of Anglo-American Espionage and Intervention in the Middle East. (Thomas Dunne Books, division of MacMillan Books, November 2010), "Miles Copeland, formerly a CIAagent, has outlined how he and Stephen Meade backed Zaim, and American archival sources confirm that it was during this period that Meade established links with extremist right-wing elements of the Syrian army, who ultimately carried out the coup" http://books.google.com/books?id=HcJMUx3HCU4C

Not to confuse two different former agents:Gerolymatos refers to admissions of Miles Copeland, while Gendzier cites admission of former CIA agent Wilbur Eveland. Plus archival sources above cited by Gerolymatos, and declassified sources cited by Prof. Douglas Little in a published 1990 scholarly journal article (and again in 2003). Case closed: nothing is 100% in history, but case closed that this is now more documented than the level of documentation of the other claims in this article. But those who don't like inconvenient well documented facts can play the games as Drmies noted.. Harel (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The text about the CIA's involvement in the 1949 coup strikes me as defensive editing - dumping a list of sources into the text of an article in order to solidify the grounds for including some text. The result is that the list of sources is digressive and irrelevant to the casual reader. I skimmed the Douglas Little article on JSTOR and I agree that there is sufficient sourcing to indicate that there was some CIA involvement in the 1949 coup - or at least to support text that says some historians say there was such involvement. However, I'm not clear why a discussion of CIA involvement in 1949 is relevant. Is someone trying to insinuate something about American intervention around the world? Because this isn't the place for that. (Nor is it clear to me that a coup wouldn't have taken place without CIA involvement, given the whole series of coups that occurred in the years following the Israeli victory in 1948 - many of which - take Nasser for instance - had nothing to do with the CIA) What relevance does the CIA's involvement in the 1949 coup have to THIS article? GabrielF (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Ga[reply]

Agreed, we might as well put in the history of the Assyrians while we are at it, additionally, that paragraph looked to be written as if it was trying to prove point. Sopher99 (talk) 12:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this debate as well. Wether the CIA was involved or not has very little to do with this article.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, just to clarify: I'm neither a CIA operative nor a historian of the Middle East. I looked into the dispute about reliability of sources--whether those sources have anything to do with the subject of the article or not is not something I looked for. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me that the approach by Drmies is precisely the correct one, here.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking about the reliability, we are talking about the necessity of the subject itself. If you want to talk about the reliability of the sources engage in the discussion above this one. Sopher99 (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel. If you look over the history you will find that what you refer to as "dumping" was a result of someone else raising the issue of reliability, and arguing against one source (or two) as enough to be trustworthy. Makes me want to joke about "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

I also agree with a comment I think you made, Gabriel, about readability; the sentence was getting to complex, and another sentence after that; this is because of the history with I7laseral's argument that one or two or later 3 (later even "100") sources are not enough. Now updating with a shorter and cleaner read. But still multiple sources because there is a grain of truth to the suggestion that for an important statement, like this, more than one source is a good idea.

That said, I have to strongly disagree with any notion that CIA having a role is not relevant. The CIA (with DIA) is nothing less than of the key players on the planet today, in budget alone (compare with China's entire military budget for example [10]) and while the budget in 1949 was smaller, it was a major player in the 20th century as well, as the present refs show in one single case (Syria, 1949). Truly, I think many of us, especially many of us from English speaking countries (especially but not only the U.S.) have to overcome our Anglo-centric bias in which other countries "meddle" but "we" (our government) is there legitimately, or even, "not relevant to discussion, so no one should mention it" How can we aim at objectivity in answering the relevance question? Here are two ways of looking at it:

First, if China or the Soviet Union had been behind the Syrian coup, it goes without saying we would find it very relevant indeed, certainly relevant enough for a brief mention. Obviously some key history is relevant, hence the history section, and key players, especially powerful players, are doubly relevant. So CIA's involvement is no less relevant than had it been China or the Soviet Union. Hardly "Assyrian history" stuff. In fact, it is arguably even more important (than has it been China) because of of the CIA's widespread involvement in so many coups over history (1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'état) or the CIA's involvement in the 1953 overthrow of the democratically elected Mosaddegh in Iran (see 4th paragraph of Mohammad_Mosaddegh) is extremely relevant if it was part of how the current regime got into power: ending democracy is pre-requisite to Baathists (or any one else) stating a dictatorship, after all; so highly relevant to readers. After all, enhansing readers' understanding of history - understanding it in context - is without question a desideratum of such wikipedia article. Which brings to the second perspective a simple test, called the Martian test, to ask ourselves. Would a Martian look at something as relevant?

So secondly, what would a Martian trying to understand our world find relevant? Again, if the USSR had it's KGB involved in coups, that would be worth knowing, the USSR having been a major player (a fortiori, even more so relevant in the case of Washington, since unlike the USSR the country still exists today). A defensive anglo-centric reader (as I used to be..) might defensively hear 'they are criticizing' the US as the only perspective. But in fact, this is very straighforward, historical background that an alien trying to understand "how the world works" here on Earth would need to know.

So, I've cut it down to one sentence, plus, I removed direct quotes in the article (they are in ref itself). This ia a major modificadtion to address your concerns. But the idea that it's irrelevant that the CIA was involved, not worth of even mentioning, simply isn't tenable. I think it's fair to discuss the number and which references are best, though. But not down to just one or two for above stated reasons. Harel (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Harel than one sentence on this subject is relevant and appropriate to the history section. Tiamut^talk 07:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't find this relevant. This regime lasted 6 months before it was overthrown. Syria has not been in the sphere of influence of the United States since that time. This is an article that discusses the current state of affairs in Syria - it doesn't discuss American intervention vis a vis the Cold War, etc. It's quite clear from your lengthy discussion of the role of the CIA above that you want to make a broader point about what you perceive to be a double standard where "[editors] have to overcome our Anglo-centric bias in which other countries "meddle" but "we" (our government) is there legitimately". That's a classic example of WP:COATRACK and I would recommend that you read that guideline. GabrielF (talk) 15:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read COATRACK GabrielF? It discusses articles created to discuss something other than their purported subject. I don't see how it applies in any way to the content we are discussing here. We are talking bout one sentence that mentions CIA involvement in the 1949 military coup. I think its appropriate weight to give to the subject which is certainly relevant to the history of political development in Syria, which is after all, a large part of what this uprising is ostensibly about. could you please explain what policy you think mandates the exclusion of this material? Tiamut^talk 16:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, COATRACK discusses major additions of text and this is a small quantity of text, but the point is the same - an incident that is merely tangentially related is being introduced in order to imply a broader point about the role of the US in the world. The text does not state that this coup lasted for 6 months, nor that there were a series of coups that followed - more IIRC than in any other Middle Eastern country - and that subsequent American interest was negligible. It does not state that many regimes were overthrown in the Arab world in the aftermath of the '48 war, and that most of those coups did not involve the CIA. By jumping from a mention of the CIA to the Baath party's seizure of power, the implication is that there was some sort of right-wing American-backed government from 49-63, when in fact there wasn't. This is a bit like an article that discusses modern Russian politics saying that the czar was overthrown in 1917 and replaced by a liberal provisional government without mentioning that that government collapsed 8 months later and was replaced with a Bolshevik government. A mention of the CIA's involvement here is misleading and tangential. That Joseph Massad and Stephen Zunes think its relevant does not impress me. These are scholars with a clear POV regarding American foreign relations. I have seen no mention of the 49 coup in mainstream sources' coverage of current events.GabrielF (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may not share the POV of Zunes and Massad, but they are reliable sources, experts in their field and certainly their analysis is notable, more so than random journalists and nonymous unconfirmed eyewitness reports. I agree we should add more about the instability of the intervening period which was marked by many coups, as Zunes notes. All of this important background to the emergence of the Baath party system, which is being challenged by the current events. So, shall we go to the NPOV noticeboard, or would it suffice to add info about 1949 to 1963 for your oncerns to be addressed? Tiamut^talk 18:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you propose text that you feel adequately presents the sequence of events that led to the Baathist regimes seizure of power. GabrielF (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of doing as Zunes does and writing as follows. "Democratic rule ended with a CIA-supported coup in March 1949 that was followed by "two decades of coups, countercoups, a brief union with Egypt, and chronic political instability." This instability continued after the 1963 military coup d'état that brought the ruling Ba'ath Party to power, until 1970 when Defence Minister Hafez al-Assad seized power and declared himself President, a position he would hold until his death in 2000."

Something like that.... Tiamut^talk 19:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The cia coup accusations do nothing but try to prove an invalid point. Besides of which, how do we know those "admissions' are reliable. Syrian state tv and Libyan state tv have in the past showed "confessions" of "alqaeda members" "admitting" that the urpisings are a "foreign plot". Sopher99 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I do not understand your comment at all Sopher99. The sources cited are scholarly ones, not Libyan or Syrian state television. Are you contesting the reliability of the sources? If so, we need togo to WP:RSN. Tiamut^talk 16:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is a scholar more or less trusted than a reporter? Thats not the point anyway. The point is that the coup, cia or not, is not the background to the Syrian uprising. The baathist coup is. Sopher99 (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So the reliability of the sources is not a problem. Good. While your POV is that the Baathist coup is the only relevant background here, My POV is that a coup preceding it that was supported by the US is certainly relevant. This POV is shared by Stephen Zunes here, and I'm sure he is not the only professor to have made the connection between the 1949 coup and events today. What we have then is a disagreement about how to present the background here in an NPOV manner? Shall we take it to that noticeboard? Tiamut^talk 16:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets include the history of the Assyrians, The Ottomans, and the French occupation while we are at it. The Syrian government has yet to even reference the CIA as an assailant in the coup, and the opposition has not made any references or allures to the cia's involvement in 1949. The relativity of the CIA is no where as significant as the relativity of the French Occupation, to which bears much more significance, because the Syrian government is constantly spewing "anti-colonial" rhetoric. Sopher99 (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets try to stay on topic. I've made a proposal above. Your feedback is welcome. If you still oppose any mention of his, it looks like the NPOV noticeboard may be a mandatory stop. Tiamut^talk 19:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Tiamut said, the scholarship is not in question. The reasons to "not include" seem to keep shifting. Earlier it was doubting the veracity, or the source, or not enough sources. Then when many sources are added, it's "padding" with sources. But now I am even more puzzled: Sopher you wrote that "he point is that the coup, cia or not, is not the background to the Syrian uprising. The baathist coup is" But wait a minute: the 1949 coup was already mentioned (without mentioning CIA) in the version of yesterday and the day before that; you did not delete or express the view that the 1949 coup is not important, back then. As soon as CIA involvement is mentioned - even the far shorter one sentence version - suddenly the 1949 coup is not relevant, and you comment against the inclusion, when you did not argue against it in the previous version? That does begin to strain credulity.

There is a clear Anglo-centric POV bias in some editors, that I will assume (per wiki guidelines) is not on purpose; I assume they are sincerely blind to their Anglo- and Washington-centric bias, simply unable to see it. If it was the KGB that was behind the coup there would hardly be a chorus of protests at the article merely mentioning in the passing the KGB's role. But include the CIA and it is viewed (from this U.S.-centric POV) that you are somehow "picking" on Washington or it's somehow "not relevant" The 1949 coup is extremely relevant: as noted above, the ending democracy was pre-requisite to Baathists (or any one else) stating a dictatorship, after all.

Nothing could be more relevant than the 1949 coup as the starting point for a discussion of modern (not Assyrian, thank you very much) history: it is the starting point where democracy is overturned; after that, a series of coups one after another, follow after the pivotal first coup, the one in 1949 against democracy. The fact some of these governments don't last long, only underscores the centrality of the 1949 coup, ending democracy, after which a series of military coups (and undemocratic governments) ensues. So 1949 coup is as central as you can get to modern history, including what opened the door to Baathists coup. I didn't see the implication suggested above, but if someone wants to add a sentence clarifying it was not all CIA backed in the interim period, by all means do so, I think that's reasonable. I am hoping people will be able to let go of their preconceptions, and we can compromise on this latest short mention. But if not, then Tiamut^talk you may have more experience as to which boards we need to get along, since this is Wikipedia, not USAcentricPedia, and while we cannot reduce Anglocentric POV to zero we should do our best to aim to remove the Washington/Anglo-centric bias against any mention of uncomfortable historical facts. Harel (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sopher. This is one of the more blatant examples of attempts at coatracking I've seen at the Project in recent memory.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments immediately above starting with "As Tiamut said" Harel (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, COATRACK is talking about the creation of entire articles to discuss a tangential topic. it simply doesn't apply here. In any case, I've opened. section at NPOVN here to solicit input from the wider community. Tiamut^talk 19:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the thrust of it is the same as the issue here. Adding something -- at best, just barely related -- to a main article, that is barely relevant to the main article. We shy away from that behavior, for the reasons discussed in wp:COATRACK. But they are also discussed in other applicable policies/essays, such as wp:SYNTH and Wikipedia:No trojan horses. They're really all about the same thing -- efforts to take a purely tangential factoid, and thrust them into an article, despite questionable relevance to the focus of the article at hand.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) I agree that information about the 1949 coup is certainly relevant, but to state as a fact that it was the point where democracy was overturned is a bit too much. Especially that there is a divergence of opinion on the matter. Moubayed feels that the point where democracy was overturned (effectively and for good) came actually with the UAR, because it was the point when the parliamentary system in Syria was replaced with a highly-centralized presidential regime (akin to what we'll witness later under Baath). Add to that that the years between Shishakli's downfall (to a popular uprising, in part) in 1954, and 1958 were relatively democratic years that saw the only peaceful (and normal) transition of power in Syria's history from a sitting president to an elected one (Atassi to Quwatli). Just something to keep in mind. Yazan (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Yazan. Nice to see you by the way :) How about :"Democratic rule was overturned by a CIA-supported coup in March 1949. Two more military coups took place that same year. A popular uprising against military rule in 1954 catalyzed a mutiny that saw the army transfer power to civilians. Free elections resulted in Shukri al-Quwatli, who had been the President at the time of the March 1949 coup, to be elected to that post in 1955. A brief union with Egypt in 1958 resulted in Syria's parliamentary system being replaced by a highly centralized presidential regime. The union ended in 1961 with Syria's secession. A 1963 military coup d'état brought the ruling Ba'ath Party to power, and was followed by another coup in 1966. In 1970, then Defense Minister Hafez al-Assad seized power and declared himself President, a position he would hold until his death in 2000."

sources can include Zunes, Massad, the BBC Article by Anne Alexander [11], among others. Tiamut^talk 20:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support Tiamut's revised paragraph. Sopher99 (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I generally support this revision. I read a few articles today and I get the impression that there wasn't so much a sudden end to democracy in 1949 as one step in a series of changes that brought about more or less democracy. In particular, see Khadduri, Majid (1951). "Constitutional Development in Syria: With Emphasis on the Constitution of 1950". Middle East Journal. 5 (2): 137–160. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help). Khadduri discusses how the Quwatli regime was regarded as corrupt and oligarchic and that al-Zaim, who came to power in the first coup, ordered elections with universal suffrage (including women). Harel seems to be making an argument above that there was democracy, then there was a CIA-sponsored coup and then there was never democracy again. Hence his discussion of how the CIA "is nothing less than of the key players on the planet today", etc. I appreciate that Tiamut and Yazan are approaching this with a more appropriate degree of nuance. GabrielF (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating discussion. I definitely think the 1949 coup and CIA involvement are worth (brief) mention, and Tiamut's paragraph is great. Many declassified documents dealing with the March 1949 coup remain to be published, and we can look forward to the interesting histories that will be written on the subject. When that material does come out, we can put it into the primary article on that subject. -Darouet (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While fixing minor formatting of reference I've added, I found these much earlier (in article) refs:

^ Cite error: Invalid < ref > tag; no text was provided for refs named Saqba; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text ^ Cite error: Invalid < ref > tag; no text was provided for refs named Suburbs; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text

They come from the "Characteristics" section of the grey right-hand side bar at the top. Mayhbe someone can fix? Harel (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]