Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Requested revert of move (back to Syrian civil war)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2013

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

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

Salim Idriss Run out of Syria

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

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

"Brown Moses" blog not a valid source on Syria

No article on this war should contain citations of "Brown Moses", who has finally been exposed as a paid stooge, and of withholding facts.[1][2] Another in a long line of western mercenary "journalists" (Elizabeth O'Bagy, Matthew VanDyke, etc.) who have been exposed recently. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request

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

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

FSA name change?

According to this article from The Daily Beast: [3]

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

From that point on in the article the mainstream rebel group are referred to as the SRF, not FSA. But I can't find many other sources reporting this, besides this article from Arutz Sheva: [4]. --Tocino 02:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Recruiting for foreign jihadists

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

Links

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

Causes of the war

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

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

• but you can write an article about this (your words *Jihad and Syria*) you have to do a lot of authoritative sourcesRqasd (talk) 11:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
• As I've mentioned before, we need an article about the background of the conflict. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
  • hers is an article from feb 1993 could be useful for such an article, , seems fairly accessible brief background - [5], Sayerslle (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

New section - Media coverage

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

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

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

Censorship

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

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

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

Foreign

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

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

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

New Brookings about Gulf financing

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

About Hezbollah soldiers strength in Syrian Civil War

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. halts aid to rebels

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

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

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

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

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

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

or maybe this is closer to the reality - [6] -"A post-Assad revolutionary Syria or a truly democratic one on the other hand might take the Palestinian struggle seriously and not use them as pawns." - Sayerslle (talk) 20:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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

" Early on, Obama sent the CIA into Turkey to throttle the flow of weapons to the opposition, and make sure they never got enough weapons to win, or weapons that could neutralize Assad's "Death from Above" air campaign [7] - Sayerslle (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Paul Adams, BBC News, 13 December 2013.

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

"Assad Is the Least Worst Option"

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

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

Nonlethal support in infobox

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

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

Financial Times on ISIS

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

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

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

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

Palestinian section

is the Palestinians section a bit biased - it reads like the Palestinians are basically grateful to assad regime -but[8] ' Palestinian camps in Syria were with the revolution before the revolution. We never forgot [the 1976 massacre in] Tel al-Zaatar [refugee camp, when a Syrian invasion of Lebanon allowed right-wing militias to kill thousands of Palestinians]. We never forgot the role of [former Syrian President] Hafez al-Assad in Lebanon against the Palestinian resistance and the camps. - hafez al-Assad was friends with Frangieh etc -I just read a book about how the Syrian backed Amal murdered the people in Bourj al-barajneh in 1986 - yesterday as well as the british surgeon the regime murdered Hassan Hassan, a Palestinian activist from Yarmouk[9] the section is too pro-regime imo Sayerslle (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

'Check what Assad is doing to Palestinians (and Syrians) in Yarmouk refugee camp [10]' - its you ranting on with your phony buzzwords - its the realities that count - what did hafez do in reality in Lebanon etc supporting frangieh, and the maronite Lebanese Front- - what is happening now at yarmouk? - in reality - Sayerslle (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Intricate details? 'Proselining'? Too long?

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

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

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

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

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

Request to our war writers

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

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

Add further note?

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

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

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

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

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

Map 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

article needs more forest less trees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few points.

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

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

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

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

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

2 sides of one fascist coin [11] Sayerslle (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

everything I add . like the derspiegel ref, gets removed , - this about torture should be in the lead [12] Sayerslle (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

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

'to play with other states as if they were ant farms'?? this is a Wikipedia article and I argued a sentence about the release of islamists by ASsad in 2011 including 260 from sednaya should be in the article. my last comment was the[13] 11000 torture photo story should be in the lead . is it ok to meddle in Syria if you are Russian or Iranian? you are ultra-sectarian, face itSayerslle (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

the Zionists and Saudis and americans - your banal explanation for all that is wrong . like the Saudis are responsible for ghouta (ludicrous snarwani's explanation)- what I find weird is that you believe you are progressive while you are just an ultra-sectarian with a decades out of date rhetoric - anyway , notforum. the article must mention the release of Islamists in spring 2011 imo. Machiavel, not a leftist, your bashar. - reporter asks, according to translation, 'why don't you shell ISIS? Why do you shell the people?' [14] - 2 sides of a fascist coin that's why.Sayerslle (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Length

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Syrian Arab Army numbers & breakdown

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

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

Infobox

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also lets stick to what sources say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foreign involvement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutrality of article lead

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

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

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

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

Global Terrorism Database (GDT) added the Free Syrian Army (FSA) on their terrorism list

Link: [16] Ratipok (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Edit Request: Syrian rebels execute over 80 civilians outside Damascus

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

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

‘People toasted in ovens’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• this news. reference (source) on the TV channel *al-Ahd*. text = Russian language. [[17]] but where is the source - ("

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

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

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

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

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

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

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