Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Non-Al qaeda mujaheedeen groups

There are other Islamist fighters operating in Syria, but less radical than Al Qaeda linked groups. For example, Syrian Martyrs Brigade (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9522741/Syria-rebels-claim-to-have-shot-down-fighter-jet.html), and Liwa al Tawheed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9435261/Badly-armed-rebels-face-tanks-as-Syrias-mother-of-all-battles-begins.html) are two such groups. Kavas (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

We can't list every Jihadist group. There's probably a lot. We should only list the important ones, such as the ones discussed in this detailed report: [1]. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Also Liwa al Tawheed is listed under FSA, listing all brigades would be extremely long. I believe that is the case with Syrian Martyrs brigade, but I am not sure about that. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

More importantly, I don't see anything in those sources which designates either group as "mujahideen". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The Wahhabi Islamist and Salafi Islamist Sunni rebel groups and factions against Assad are not all al-Qaeda, but they are Islamist-Jihadist. Al-Qaeda is listed as a separate group, although it is more of a 'spirit' nowadays and no longer one group like the CIA-Saudi-Pakistani mujahedeen list "The Base" Al-Qaï'da in Soviet-enforced communist Afghanistan.NiederlandeFW (talk) 10:04, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A translation of the somewhat idiosyncratic list, which includes names, ideological tendencies, and numbers of fighters in the groups, is below (information in brackets is from LWJ):

1. Tawheed Brigades [a.k.a. the al-Tawheed Brigade]: This group, which is active in the Aleppo and Idlib region, subscribes to a view that is similar to al Qaeda's. High-level officers are not accepted into this group.

2. The Al Nusrah front: This is the Syrian branch of al Qaeda. The Al Nusrah Front shares al Qaeda's ideology, but calls itself by a different name. The group is active in Aleppo and Idlib, and has been responsible for organizing the attacks on Damascus.

3. Libyans, Chechnyans and Afghans: They are present mostly in Aleppo, and they organize attacks in Idlib, Homs, and Damascus.

4. The Free Syrian Army (FSA): This group includes high-level officers. The FSA fights against Syrian troops in Idlib, Damascus, Homs, Hama, Dar'a, and Aleppo. Its central base is the Antakya Apaydın camp [in Turkey, near the Syrian border]. The group is estimated to have around 20,000 armed members. FSA members subscribe to the Salafist view. Some al Qaeda members are known to have infiltrated this group.

5. The Farouq Brigade [likely referring to the al Farouq Brigade, which is one of the most active battalion units of the Free Syria Army]: This group, which has around 7,000 armed members, is active in the Homs region.

6. Bedouin: These fighters are based in the Dar'a region [in southwest Syria, near the border with Jordan].

7. Military Council: [The group is active in] Deir al-Zour.

8. Al Qaeda Tawheed Brigades: [The group was active in] Deir al-Zour. [The group] is known to have disintegrated now, but it was a small group with no link to another group by a similar name.

9. Open Battalion: These are Salafi Islamists, but not like al Qaeda. They are active in the Aleppo region. The group includes soldiers and civilian opposition members.

10. Dawn of Islam Battalion [possibly the Brigade of Islam, or Liwa al-Islam]: This group is comprised of Salafi Islamists fighting in Aleppo.

11. Free Sham [a.k.a. Ahrar al-Sham or Free Men of Syria]: This group consists of Salafi Islamists active in Aleppo and Damascus. Turkish Osman Karahan was part of this group.

12. The Brigade of Unity [a.k.a. Liwa al-Tawhid, part of the FSA]: This group of about 3,000 fighters is active in Damascus and the surrounding countryside.

Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2012/09/jihadi_site_publishes_list_of.php#ixzz2B5Wz1tJm Kavas (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Colors of the main war map

Should we change the colors of the main war map so that govt forces is red and rebels green per flag colors? The current coloring seems to match the one made for the Libyan civil war, but the combatants had different flag colors for that war. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Support I agree with futuretrillionaire because the syrian civil war map can't look the sam as the libyan civil war map and it will be suitable per flag colors Alhanuty (talk) 01:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It doesnt really matter but why not? EllsworthSK (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Third row for Kurds

It seems we will have to need a third belligerent row soon, as in Algerian civil war and Lebanese civil war. The Kurds are now killing FSA: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/27/syrian-rebels-kurds-clash-aleppo?newsfeed=true FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A few clashes is not significant enough for a third belligerent. The Kurdish commanders have not declared open hostility to the FSA. We can do what was done on the Battle of Aleppo article, which is to add a note in the infobox next to the Kurds, saying they've experienced clashes with the FSA. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

20 killed FSA in one clash is a big deal. It' still an early stage, so I guess we can wait. But I bet it's inevitable we'll have a third row, as the years go along. In three years time, we might have four. In any case, it doesn't make sense to align the Kurds with the "opposition". FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

They haven't declared open hostility with the government forces either, their position is very clear: To protect the kurdish population from aggression, to maintain a nuetral stance in the conflict, and to push for greater autonomy for the Kurdish regions. If they are not in conflict with the Syrian Opposition, neither can it be claimed they are in conflict with the government as there have been very limited instances of calshes with Assad forces, and very few casualties. - Django -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.34.239 (talk • contribs)

I added a note in the infobox. Btw, the Kurds are occupying what was Syrian land. Just because the Syrian Army withdrew from Kurdish areas without much fighting doesn't mean they're not belligerents.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Well they're not OCCUPYING anything, that's where they live, they're not going to leave their lands just because of the civil war. The government has, for the time being, allowed them to govern themselves during the crisis. Presumably because their forces are too overstreched to secure the Kurdish regions. Now, that may change in the future, depending on events and the course of the war. But for now, they can't really be considered opposing forces in the same sense as the FSA etc. 10:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Django — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.53.90 (talk)

Oh come on. We know for sure that there are definitely separatist elements among the Kurds. They fought the Syrian govt to create their own independent state. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I´ve been for this since I added them to infobox. But I guess I´ll let the consensus take its toll. Again. EllsworthSK (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

You know what? I have another idea. How about we remove the Kurds from the infobox all together, like we did for Russia and the West, and just leave a note there that redirects to the Kurds section of the article? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk)

No, no, no. Kurds have under control large parts of territory and this latest incident just reflects that they are indeed important to be there. And unlike Russia and others, they are active combatant party (how is that word on b - bellintengers or something like that?). EllsworthSK (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Just put them in a third column, I'm not disputing the fact that there are seperatist elements in the Kurdish movement. I'm not disputing the fact that the interests of the Kurdish militias and government forces are at odds. But from the evidence presented on these articles, it's clear that the Kurdish groups are pursuing their own agenda, totally seperate from the Syrian government and the Syrian opposition. In the city of Aleppo for instance, the Kurdish districs have been mostly left to the control of this "PYD" organisation, and had remained unscathed until the recent attack by rebel forces. BTW, when are the Kurdish casualties in the recent Aleppo fighting going to be added to the info box? According to the Battle of Aleppo page, they stand at 3 PYD militants dead, 7-8 Kurdish civillians, and 180 captured. 13:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)-Django — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.54.117 (talk)

What about the Mujahideen. Should we add them in 4th column? We already have lines separating these 3 groups, and a note that indicates Kurdish clashes with the FSA. I think that's enough. The main war is still between the Assad and the opposition. Making a 3rd column for the Kurds is misleading and WP:undue weight.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Because the "Mujahideen" are (in general) allied with the FSA and are engaging the same targets, even if they happen to be un-organised and badly coordinated, as is the claim made by the mainstream news media. The Kurds are an entirely seperate entity, and while still involed/participating in the conflict, have wildly different objectives. Including them in a seperate column is not undue weight, it is simply accurate reporting of the facts on the ground. 86.167.54.117 (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Django

Exactly, the FSA are allied with Islamists, and many in the FSA are Islamists anyway. There's now footage of the incident where FSA killed five Kurds (which lead to Kurds killing 19 FSA). FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The FSA are not allied with the Jihadists:[2] Here's the quote from the article: "It is unclear how much the jihadists co-operate with other groups. But more secular-minded leaders in the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the largest umbrella group, are wary of losing influence to them. Some FSA commanders recently tried to expel a clutch of foreign jihadists who kidnapped a British and a Dutch journalist and held them for a week. Mustafa Sheikh, a defector who heads the FSA’s top military council, says 60% of the fighters striving to overthrow Mr Assad’s regime come under the FSA’s control. But that leaves a lot who do not. “We need money from the international community to unite the rebels and stop well-funded Islamists from expanding their influence,” he says." -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

First source only mentions some in the FSA are "wary" of working with them, not that they aren't working with them, which they are by most accounts. Second incident was only the FSA asking some foreign jihadis to release some journalists. Which they did. No clash, no nothing. Shows how much they cooperate, and that the jihadis are subordinate. A word is enough. They're fighting for the same cause, and they cooperate. The Kurds don't. Simple as that. In a sense, the jihadis are to the FSA what the "shabiha" are to the Syrian Army. Their more brutish brothers in arms. The one time there was a clash between FSA/Jihadis was not about ideology, it was just because some jihadi hogged the Gulf supplied weapons. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The internal problems with coordination and chain of command among the rebel groups & Mujahideen are well known. That doesn't mean they are not allied, that they dont have the same objectives, or that they dont communicate and assist each other. Thus, they cannot be separated into a fourth column. [3] This article by the Guardian, demonstrates quite succinctly the level of Mujahideen/FSA cooperation across Syria. And that although there are disagreements and disorganisation between the two elements, that military cooperation is being practised on a large scale. Now compare that with the statements and activities of the Kurdish forces, that are detailed on this very site and you should be able to see the difference. 109.155.226.189 (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)-Django

This of course doens't mean that all Kurdish groups should be put in the third row. There are a few Kurdish groups that work directly under the SNC, and perhaps even FSA. But then again, so are some Alawites. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The vast majority of the fighting occurs between the govt and the rebels. We already have an article about the Kurdish conflict: 2012 Syrian Kurdistan rebellion. Adding a 3rd column for the Kurds clutters the infobox and gives the impression that they are one of the main belligerents. In reality, they play a minor role. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

"Clutter the infobox..."?, what are you talking about? How can it possibly "clutter" the infobox? The info box is there to put info in. The correct info. Not misleading, confusing, false info like it has atm. It doesnt clutter up the Lebanon War infobox, it doesn't clutter up the numerous other infoboxes which have used the same layout, and which are perfectly clear and intuitive to read. How could placing belligerents in the correct columns possibly clutter up the infobox any more than having notes scribbled all over it, telling people that the belligerents placed in the same column are actually not allies and are in fact fighting with each other? And no, placing the Kurds in a 3rd column does not give any such impression, it simply tells the reader: "there are kurdish militants engaged in the civil war, these Kurdish militants are not affiliated with either the Syrian government, nor the opposition; and then the numbers, casualties etc. Further details about the Kurds (the nature of their role in the civil war) are then accessed from the article you mentioned (and a fairly accurate and well balanced article that is as well), job done. You are, to be blunt, talking waffle. 109.155.226.189 (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)-Django

The main war is between the Syrian govt and the opposition. Two sides, two columns. The Kurds play a minor role in the conflict. I say we do what was done for the Iraq war article. Add a note about the Kurds in the infobox that redirects to the 2012 Syrian Kurdistan rebellion article.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're just plain wrong, to disregard the Kurdish presence as irrelevant. The Kurds form a massive demographic in northern Syria, and they command alot of influence. As EllsworthSK stated; they are very important aspect of the civil war, and are active belligerents. They can not be ignored, and they can not be thrown together wit the FSA/Syria opposition. They need their own column. 109.155.226.189 (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)-Django

I agree with Future. The Kurds are a combatant in the conflict, but their role in it has been extremely minor up to now. Giving them a third column would be giving them undue weight. The main fighting in this conflict is between the Syrian government and the opposition. I think a proper compromise would be, as Future has suggested, to add a note about the Kurds in the infobox that redirects to the article on their rebellion. EkoGraf (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• "Clutter" is a non-issue and a bad excuse. See Algerian civil war, Yugoslav wars, Lebanese civil war, and several others. As for a third row, give it a few days, I'm sure we will see more direct Kurdish action against the FSA, and vice versa. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I recommend removing the Kurds entirely from the infobox, and providing a link to a page describing Kurdish combatants in the war. Sopher99 (talk) 22:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree to Future's recommendation to take the Iraq war as a template, where you had all of the warring rebel groups in one column, but with a note title For fighting between insurgent groups, see Civil war in Iraq. So, we leave the Kurds in the infobox on the rebels side of the box, but with a separation line. In the Iraq war the Sunni insurgents clashed with the Shiites on a regular bases, but they are still all in the same column in the infobox, no separation line between them ether. In the case that the fighting between the Kurds and the rebels escalate we move them to the government side with a separation line (taking into consideration that there has only been a few incidents of Kurdish-government fighting, plus in the northern Kurdish regions the Kurds control the towns but the local government military garrisons are still operational). EkoGraf (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ekograf's and future's idea. Sopher99 (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I agree that we leave it as it is for now. The whole point of the separation line is to indicate that the FSA and the Kurds don't necessarily co-operate. If some people are so insistent that the Jihadists are workig with the FSA, then we can debate removing the separation line between them. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The separation line does not indicate cooperation or non-cooperation. It indicates that they don't hate eachother but don't want to be associated with eachother. The FSA is complex because some don't mind the jihadists so long as the help out with military operations, but some FSA hate them so much they gone out of their way to kill them just to steal their ammunition. Sopher99 (talk) 01:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think the Iraq war article is a good role model, since there we had the US vs. everyone, and the article focuses on that aspect, not the supposed Iraqi civil war. This conflict is much more similar to the Lebanese, Algerian and Yugoslav wars, so look at those instead. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain how the Syrian civil war is in any way similar to what happened in Lebanon and Yugoslavia?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

In Lebanon, a government run by minority Maronites (backed by the west) was challenged by the Muslim majority which felt dominated. On Yugoslavia and Kosovo, our friend Radwan Ziadeh has been very active in pointing out analogiesto get the west's attention, so Google him. FunkMonk (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

More Kurd on opposition violence: http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/58747-report-abou-ibrahim-killed-by-kurds-while-trying-to-storm-aleppo-town FunkMonk (talk) 09:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

undue until it becomes a major part of the war, no? Soosim (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Now the FSA have kidnapped and murdered a female Kurdish PYD leader[4], I think it's soon time to either remove the Kurds from the infobox entirely, or give them a new row. They've been fightingmore with the FSA than they ever did with the Syrian army, so keeping them in the same row is a complete joke. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine

In light of recent developments in the Al-Hajar Al-Aswad area, where "fierce fighting between Palestinian groups in the Damascus suburb and "FSA" rebels has broken out around the Yarmuk district, I think it is time to add the PFLP to the infobox on the side of the Syrian government. Apprarently the Palestinians are being directed by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command, who has "joined forces with the army after fighting spread into the camp." according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

The following quotes are from: The Herald Sun; http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/air-raids-bombs-rock-damascus/story-e6frf7k6-1226506293707 and the Lebanese Daily Star; http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Oct-30/193220-syria-clashes-erupt-in-palestinian-refugee-camp.ashx#axzz2AmZd4Qsl '"Clashes broke out overnight in Al-Hajar Al-Aswad district between rebels and the army, spreading into the adjacent Yarmuk Palestinian camp. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command joined on the side of the army," said Rami Abdel Rahman, director of the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights watchdog.', 'There were no immediate reports of casualties, but the Syrian Revolution General Council, a network of activists on the ground, said fighting was heavy between the rebel Free Syrian Army and Palestinian forces.'.

I would edit the infobox myself but thought I would leave to the more experienced editors here, so as not to mess up the page and/or cause "clutter". 109.158.139.198 (talk) 12:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)-Django

I would wait until we get a clearer picture, for example if the PLA was to declare allegiance. For now its just of few fighters interfering in the battle. Sopher99 (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you know how many fighters are involved? There are tens of thousands of Palestinians living in this district. Besides which, a few fighters or not, they still count as belligerents and the references back this up. If you can provide a reference for different claim, then change the infobox, or put a line between the groups as you did for the Kurds. 109.158.139.198 (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2012 (UTC)-Django

http://www.albawaba.com/editorchoice/palestinian-refugee-syria-fsa-434397 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/world/middleeast/palestinians-in-syria-drawn-into-the-violence.html?pagewanted=all Sopher99 (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It is PFLP GC specifically, a separate branch of PFLP, which has always been pro-Syrian. FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we are talking specifically about the PFLP, an armed group which is engaged in the civil war. If you have sources identifying other Palestinian groups as active combatants, I welcome you to add them to the infobox. However none of the sources you provided confirmed any Palestinian belligerents except that the PFLP which is indeed operating on behalf of the Assad government. According to your own source - "Most of the refugees joining the anti-regime revolt are not affiliated to traditional Palestinian factions or movements, according to activists", in other words there are no recognised Palestinian groups that can go in the opposition column. (at a stretch, you could *mention* that there are Palestinian sympathisers joining the FSA, but I think that really belongs in the main article, not in the infobox). 109.158.139.198 (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)-Django

No, PFLP GC, a splinter group of PFLP. In any case, they're different from some other Palestinian factions because they're secular and socialist, unlike some of the more Islamist Palestinian groups, who would naturally align with the FSA. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

FunkMonk, you're quite right, my apologies. In that case, PFLP - General Command should be added under the Syrian government column, as a supporter at least. I think it's agreeable that this groups involvment in the war is much more substantial than Iran for instance, and Iran is listed as a combatant, even though it's purported links are very strenuous, at best. 109.158.139.198 (talk) 17:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)-Django

It shouldn't be surprising that the PFLP-GC is fighting along side the Syrian govt, as reported by multiple RS. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

We can put that faction in so long as we get to put "Palestinian militia" into the Syrian opposition side as this source clearly states http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Jul-18/181033-palestinians-join-syria-revolt-activists-fsa.ashx#axzz2Aniktc00 Sopher99 (talk) 18:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is the article says "Many Palestinian youth have joined the FSA." So they are already included under the FSA. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

And the problem with that is that most Palestinians in Syria are not Syrian citizens. Sopher99 (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

As a compromise could we maybe replace it with 'SOME Palestinian militias'?, so as not to give the impression that a vast majority of Palestinians in Syria support one faction or the other, as the sources indicate a split, or multiple rifts in the Palestinian support base. 109.158.139.198 (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Django

Okay, we will write "several" ("some" sounds awkward in this context). As a side note about 79% of Palestinians support Anti-goverment protests in Syria. http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2012/p45efull.html Sopher99 (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm not sure whether I trust that source or not, but I'm happy with "several Palestinian militias" personally. 109.158.139.198 (talk) 19:11, 30 October 2012 (UTC)-Django

If Libyan volunteers of Liwaa al-Umma are classified under the FSA. I don't see why non-citizen Palestinians can't. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk)

We reached a compromise anyway. Liwa al Umma was intentionally created by the Libyan Mahdi al Herati to keep Libyan volunteers in Syria under a single leader instead of just random attacks. Sopher99 (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Liwaa al-Umma came under FSA control as of September or so [5]; that's why we have them under the FSA in the infobox. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently there is an official Anti-Government Palestinian Brigade. It is called the Liwa al-Asifah or "storm brigade". http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/syria-rebels-form-brigade-to-battle-pro-assad-palestinians.premium-1.473509 86.167.54.114 (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)-Django

The FSA are arming Palestinians to fight other Palestinians now: http://warincontext.org/2012/11/01/syrian-rebels-arm-palestinians-against-assad/ FunkMonk (talk) 00:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Massacre of Syrian soldiers

In last few days there are some information about massacre of government soldiers, prisoners of war. I think that it should be included in article.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 09:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps maybe in the humanrights violations section? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I supposed that it is proper section.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's already included in the Al-Nusra Front article, so nvm. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Jordanian soldier killed

Since we have put the 2 Turkish soldiers who died on the anti-government side of the infobox, because they were killed by the government military, on which side should we put the Jordanian soldier who was killed by anti-government fighters? By that logic he should go on the government side of the infobox, but with a separation line of course. Opinions? EkoGraf (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. Turkey is definitely allied with the FSA, so I don't have a problem with putting the pilots on that side. Putting the Jordanian soldier on the Syrian is a bit misleading. The best solution is probably to just put it under the notes section at the bottom of the infobox along with the other unsorted casualties. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Soon we'll probably need a third column anyway. The Kurds are not exactly allied with the insurgents. FunkMonk (talk) 03:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The Kurds of Syria in a large majority are passively neutral, although inimical to Arabization they are now in a modus vivendi with the Baath Party. In Qamishli, Kurdish Democratic Party and Baath Party offices as well as Armenian and Syriac political movements cooperate. The Kurds are depicted in the wrong way indeed. Only individual Kurds, some of them conservative Sunni Muslims or former political prisoners, work for the Syrian National Council (SNC) abroad, whereas many more Kurds inside Syria are engaged in the democratic political dialogue for reconciliation with the current Syrian president and government. The ethnic Kurdish areas not directly controlled by Turkish watchposts and Turkish secret services for the Free Syrian Army of rebels, are unanimously opposing and expelling FSA rebels and especially foreign jihadis entering from the Turkish border. A third column is needed. Jordan is as a kingdom pro-American, but it is not part of the Wahhabi and Sunni axis of FSA supporters yet, and there are signs Jordan's authorities are more or less favouring the Syrian Arab Army remaining in control of Syria and its borders. Jordan is neutral, but in a difficult position with Muslim Brotherhood and Jordanian Salafists, like the government of Lebanon which is moderately pro-Syrian, but also cannot contain Tarabulus/Tripoli Salafi Sunni jihadism and Salafi imams calling for Sunni jihad against Alawis and Assad. The Jordanian soldier was a victim of terrorism by foreign Salafi jihadists illegally trying to enter Syria.NiederlandeFW (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The whole point for those 2 lines between the FSA, the Jihadists and the Kurds is because they're not allied with each other. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 11:45, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

See Lebanese civil war FunkMonk (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

See Iraq war Sopher99 (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Why? There are no real parallels. For a quite complex example, see Yugoslav Wars FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Another related example with three rows: Algerian Civil War FunkMonk (talk) 05:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Why not just add a spillover section in the infobox like in the Libya article? You could put Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey in there. ClydeCow (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Jihadists and FSA are allies alright. Check the Ahrar al-Sham article for an example. They cooperate in battle? Yes; They attacked each other? No. --Wüstenfuchs 22:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

(1) The Iraq War and Lebanese civil war are very different from the Syrian civil war. I don't see what good is there to compare them. (2) The border clash in the Libyan article was far greater than the Jordan incident. (3) For the most part, Jihadists and FSA do not co-operate. Many FSA commanders have criticized the radicals. In conclusion the status quo is good, and Jordan belongs down in the "casualties 3" section of the infobox.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Then you don't know much about the Lebanese civil war. FunkMonk (talk) 05:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hezbollah flag removed?

Apparently an admin removed the Hezhollah flag from multiple articles, including this one. I don't see the problem using it. Is Hezbollah, a militant organization in Lebanon, deemed a terrorist group by the U.S., really going to file copyright lawsuits because of this? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright matters are taken with the utmost seriousness here. While I would like to see it used, it is non-free content and is thus restricted in what it is legally allowed to be used in. Per Wikimedia policy, non-free use rationale must be provided for every article that it is used in. Right now, such a rationale is only in effect for the Hezbollah article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see an issue either. --Jethro B 17:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure terrorist organizations do not have copyrights, at least in the U.S. Can someone help me find proof of this. The best I can find is this International Emergency Economic Powers Act. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Flags are not copyrighted. If you can't put the flag image here why is the flag image on the hezbollah article? You should just re-add it. Sopher99 (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

National flags are usually too old to be copyrighted. Not so with flags designed less than thirty years ago. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No, you should not "just re-add it". Familiarise yourself with copyright policy. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have a idea on how to get the flag back? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:NFCC. I don't think there's any real chance of getting it back, but you should look it over and drop a line at WP:MCQ to clarify things. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Simply add a rational and re-add it. EkoGraf (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Would almost certainly be found to fail NFCC#8: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Let's be honest here, the only reason we want the flag in the infobox is for aesthetic reasons. It's not really "significantly increasing" anyone's understanding of the topic. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I didn't think I'd have to resort to doing this, but I sent Hezbollah an email, requesting permission to use the flag. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

[6] Ohhh, Homeland Security is gonna love that. Good luck getting on any flights now.... (joking but maybe not???)

Is it really all that critical, though? Seems like an unjustified amount of trouble to go through for a few tiny flags to make a Wikipedia infobox look pretty. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

If I stop editing WP for more than 72 hours. Please come and save me. XD-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

In case you get a reply, I feel I should note that we do require more than just permission to use the flag on Wikipedia in order for us to treat it as free. We would need an explicit statement that the flag is in the public domain or release under a free license -- we recommend that copyright holders use the template provided at WP:CONSENT. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I knew that I was sending an email to a political party, so I used one of the formal example templates. However, I have doubts that Hezbollah will respond. Oh well.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

They won't respond. I tried before you. I think you need a real person who can convince them about it lol. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I found a public domain version of the Hezbollah symbol made by the National Counterterrorism Center. It's not the right color, but I guess we'll just have to live with it. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It's still not designed by the US government, so isn't free. I can't upload an image of Mickey Mouse to Commons even if I draw it myself. FunkMonk (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

DPRK and Syria sign MOU and agreements.

From Central News Agency, DPRK. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lqB8HUHUTY&feature=g-u-u — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.237.122.122 (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

North Korea is already mentioned in the Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war article. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Syria infobox

There is a discussion regarding changes to the infobox in the Syria article. Feel free to discuss it at the Syria talk page. Thank you. Yazan (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Houthis

There are two problems with these sources provided for the alleged Houthis involvement:[7], [8]. First, the newspapers' reliability is uncertain. Second, they cite unverified opposition claims. Is this good enough evidence for inclusion? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No. FunkMonk (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I know Houthis did support the Syrian regime, but no concrete evidence was shown them fighting alongside the government. Myronbeg (talk) 10:06, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposing merge of Eid al-Adha Truce into this article

Per the tags on that page, I have proposed merging Eid al-Adha Truce into this article. besieged^talk 15:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Definitely support. The truce only lasted for a few days. Not enough content for its own article. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Quneitra/Golan

Apparently, the Golan DMZ has gone live [9] [10], with Israel getting drawn closer to the conflict [11] [12]. New article, or add elsewhere? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone added this in the foreign involvement section. I think that's good enough as of now. I would wait for the situation to develop before doing more. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There's an article now at 2012 Syrian-Israeli border clashes, but I don't think that's an adequate solution as it stands. The scope for that article is too narrow—the opposition plays an even greater role in the clashes there than Israel does. I've started a thread there to discuss the matter. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification

In our summary table of belligerents, it can seem (as currently presented) that all those below "Iran" are Iranian. That obviously isn't the case (e.g., Hezbollah, Abu al-Fadhal al-Abbas brigade, PFLP–GC). I think the best way to clarify may be to bold the entities listed in the above parenthetical.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GCC countries shift official recognition to opposition coalition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iran and Hezbollah

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

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

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

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

Internet Blackout

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

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

russia

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

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

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

[13]

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

Proposal to move map from “Cities” article to here, to replace File:Syrian Civil War.svg

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

- More cities/towns (108)

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

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

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

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

Tradedia^talk 00:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Syrian army demolishing thousands of homes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Images of Syrian Army

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Kurdish" is not a religion

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

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

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

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

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

Undue weight to chemical weapons claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't see what is the issue here. Like in any ongoing event, some sections become bloated and needs to be summarized or if notable enough moved to another article. As such 'Lihaas' edit [14] removing the whole section of sourced material is wrong, while 'The Proffesor' edit [15] seems like a step in the right direction. For this discussion to remain constructive I suggest to avoid statements like "too much" and address specifics, Thanks.--Mor2 (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

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

adding Mujahideen subsection?

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

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

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

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

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

FSA's child soldiers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Combatants - POV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Opposition"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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