Talk:Syrian civil war/Kurds

New belligerent proposed: Kurdish's PYD

I think a new belligerent should be added to this civil war.

The Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) with has its own military forces. They seem to have a deal with the Syrian governement, which allow them to have an autonomy in Kurdish area in extchanges for them to crush the opposition in these areas.

The sources are the following:

They are preventing the syrian rebels from operating in Kurdish ares by military force: http://www.rudaw.net/english/news/syria/4882.html http://jonathanspyer.com/2012/06/29/syrian-rebels-kurdish-separatists-face-off-in-syria/ They are clashing with the rebels http://www.sundayszaman.com/sunday/newsDetail_getNewsById.action?newsId=273504. It seems that they are also arresting Kurdish opposition members and are sending them to the Syrian military forces. http://www.todayszaman.com/news-286211-syrian-pkk-holds-trials-for-kurdish-opposition-members.html

I believe their inclusion is important because on the ground their influence is real. One source say they have been reinforced by 4 000 PKK fighters in additions to the local Kurdish fighters. They are also in full control of Afrin District in Aleppo Governorate, which has a population of 400 000.

That being said, I am not sure where to place them. Should they be placed with the Syrian governement forces because they are cooperating in a deal of autonomy for support against the rebels, or should they be placed as a third party, because they play their own Kurdish card and don't really support the governement goals and also just don't want rebels bring the war to them ? --Maldonado91 (talk) 11:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This [1] shows that the Kurdish National council, the KNC, complained to the FSA that the PYD or PKK was suppressing anti-Assad demonstrations and kidnapping Kurdish activists. Between 3-5 people were killed in clashes in Erfin between the FSA and PYD on July 3.

Salih Muslim Mohammed, the PYD leader has made it clear that they don't support the Syrian Government and that the Assad government has indeed lost control in Syria's Kurdistan. Eg, all the checkpoints being set up in Kurdish villages and towns. [2] Therefore, it would make sense to have a third column. -Goltak (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Politically they are a third party certainly. But military, they only clashes with rebels, give opposition members to the governement and have been played as a card by the Syrian governement which released more than 600 PYD prisonners. The PKK also said they would fight with Syria if Turkey attacked. That's why I hesitate, between their political and military sides.--Maldonado91 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The Kurds should not be included as a belligerent because their role in the conflict can be at most described as ambiguous. According to the New York Times, [3]the kurds for the most part don't support either side.---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 16:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This article does mention an alliance between PKK and the Syrian governement. In reality, this is the PYD, which is close to the PKK by some degree.--Maldonado91 (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

They haven't been involved thus far in a large manner in the conflict, if they do in the future we add them. EkoGraf (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think they should be put on the government side but separated like the jihadists are on the opposition side. Because, they are not in conflict with the government, like the jihadists are not with the opposition, but they do not support the government, like the jihadists don't support the opposition, and are also in a degree of conflict with the FSA, compared to jihadists who are in open conflict with the government. EkoGraf (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I beg to differ. Per [4] EllsworthSK (talk) 22:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources are contradictory. The question is more between putting them into the government support or putting them as a third party rather than erasing them completely even if they are a lot less mediatized compared to the bigger sides.--Maldonado91 (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It is complete bogus. If they support government, how come they stroke a deal with opposition Kurdish National Council [5]. PYD is not pro-Assad (as PKK), but rather anti-Turkish. They do not fight for Assad. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Kurdish are always interested by one thing, their autonomy. If the Syrian governement made a deal with them for autonomy against no armed rebels there, it makes sense. Also , they struck a deal with the opposition Kurdish under the banner of Iraqi Kurdistan to avoid civil war among the Kurds. But for the moment, they are more a problem for the rebels than for the governement. --Maldonado91 (talk) 23:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Than how come that Iraqi Kurdistan is hosting Kurdish deserters and Peshmerga are training Syrian Kurds who come there while Kurdistan officials are full of hate towards Assad? Assad and his father ripped Kurds of all rights they ever had, they even took their nationality. Rest of your post is complete speculation, when was there fighting between Kurds? And when did Assad proposed autonomy (in Syrian ARAB republic) for Kurds? Never and he never will, that is why Qamishli is out of government control and yet not under control of PKK. There are Kurdish militias allied with KNC and there is PKK, KNC has support of Iraqi Kurdistan, PKK does not. And why would they be more problem for the rebels than for the government given that they want both of them to keep from Kurdish territory? EllsworthSK (talk) 23:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Also I am adding interview with head of PYD [6]. Does this look like an ally of Assad? I believe he won’t leave until he kills all of Syria. He might leave when the country is a total mess. The Syrian regime is brutal. We must do whatever we can to prevent it from shedding blood in the Kurdish areas. The regime is preparing to build an Alawi government. he also explain FSA incident It is not the PKK and PYD who have prevented the Free Syrian Army from entering Efrin, it is the people. They want to protect their areas themselves. We don’t want the Free Syrian Army to enter Kurdish villages and give the Syrian military an excuse to wipe them out. It is our duty to protect our people. What is basically same bloody thing that Druze are doing. I am removing it. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree Tradedia (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok fellas, this just came out [7]. Kurdish militias, allied to PYD started taking control of several cities (starting with Kobani) from the government. I propose creating third collum with Kurdistan flag and just name "Kurds" and list as units PYD and Kurdish militias. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with adding the Kurds, but no need for a third coloumn since they haven't engaged in conflict with the opposition. Since they are anti-Assad just add them to the anti-Assad coloumn. But separate them with a line like we have done with the mujahedeen and the official syrian opposition since the kurds have not alligned themselves with ether. EkoGraf (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why was they removed? new sources tell us that they (YPG) have clashed with the government forces in Qamishli http://www.rudaw.net/english/news/syria/4984.html 17:49 22 Juli 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.227.178.107 (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

RV Kurdish from infobox

The sources on the infobox dont provide information that the Kurdish are fighting the goverment. It have been reported by many sources that Kurdish are neutral, and some sources saying that Kurdish is backing up the goverment :[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]Dafranca (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 Syrian Kurdistan campaign. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

They are. They are included in both the infobox, the main article, the above article, the YPG article etc. Lots of sources. True, I wanted Kurds to have their own collum in infobox but general consensus was to separate them with line from FSA. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Those sources come from the time before the PKK and PYD established an agreement which the FSA. The ---- indicates they fight the Syrian government but do not fight alongside the Free Syrian Army (actually they do in Aleppo - See the Battle of Aleppo (2012) page). The last source is not reliable either, as it immediately calls the PKK terrorists. I7laseral (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

EU, USA and UK both have PKK on their terrorist list. Calling PKK terroristic organization thus is not sign of unreliability. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliability (RS) is very different than objectivity (NPOV). Don't confuse those - a source can be both reliable and still POVish. The reliability depends on the quality of the source, and it doesn't matter how it calls the PKK, but rather if it has an editorial board.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Eh, The PKK have not "made an agreement with the FSA", but with the Syrian government. The gov has left Kurdish areas for the PKK to annoy Turkey. Even the Turks claim this. Please quit the revisionism. FunkMonk (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That is correct. For example in Aleppo the Army still hasn't attacked Kurdish-held territory. --Wüstenfuchs 18:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not what PYD, KNC or YPG says. Instead they report that army attacked one of the Kurdish districts with artillery fire and killed 21 civilians. In retaliation Kurdish forces killed 5 Syrian soldiers, injured others and ransacked remaining government compounds in several cities. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

What's the source? Most articles I've seen go by the other interpretation. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Check out Kurdistan campaign article. I added it there few days ago. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And it wasn´t 5 but 3 Syrian soldiers that were killed by YPG. Mea culpa. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The Syrians could easily crush them if they wanted to. They clearly have a deal.[14] And laughable that Erdogan has the guts to blame the Syrians for letting terrorists cross their border. FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Crush here, crush there, so far crushed nothing. I am not interested in what could´ve been and should´ve been. Fact is that they did nothing, that authority was overtaken by KSC which is anti-Assad (both PYD and KNC) and YPG killed several of their soldiers, ransacked their offices and kicked out security personal. And they clearly do not have a deal as for all listed before. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

PKK-PYD

Lol, how you guys list PYD as part or rebels and PKK as part of Syrian government supporters, when both are part of the same organization called Koma Civakên Kurdistan and the PYD is basically the PKK's Syrian branch. Pushing pro-American agenda in this article has completely messed up all logic and reality I see...Kermanshahi (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

There just isn't a lot strong evidence of PKK-PYD military cooperation from RS. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed PKK's alleged support for Assad because in the source you use, there is no information provided to back this up. First read your own sources, before you use it. I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.202.165 (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It clearly says "In Aleppo, both sides reported heavy fighting in the Sheik Maksoud neighborhood, a Kurdish district largely controlled by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, which has long been allied with the Syrian government." PKK fighters in Aleppo are helping the Syrian government. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The sentence which has long been allied with the Syrian government probably refers to PKK's long alliance with Assad, which ended in the beginning of the 21st century when Assad and Erdogan boosted the relationship between both countries. One could argue that this civil war completely destroyed this friendship, and that's indeed true, but the foundation you use to claim the PKK is supporting Assad in this civil war because of that short sentence I quoted, is just too weak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.202.165 (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No, they aren't. Believe it or not but this is bullshit. PKK = PYD. It is the same and you guys put it in both conflict partys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.49.45 (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Another source [15]. Australian reporter clearly says rebels with whom he was with described the PKK as Assad-backed, no doubt about what he said. Read it. EkoGraf (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

If you don't have a subscription to the Australian, here is the equivalent article:[16]-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. PKK commander denies his fighters are in Syria: [17] Looks like we might have something like the Hezbollah-Iran debate again.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Full quote from AJE interview with Murat Karayılan (emphases mine):

"Turkey does not want us to be part of the changes in the Middle East .... Turkey is afraid of the changes in the region. They are afraid that the Kurds will wake up and also rise like the rest of the people in the Middle East ...

There are no PKK fighters inside Syria. This is Turkish propaganda. As far as I know and I follow the Syrian situation very closely, there are PYD forces in that area but they are not cooperating with the regime or the government forces. PKK is an organisation that wants peace and democracy in the region. PKK has been fighting for peace for 40 years. PKK supports change and democracy in Syria. But PKK does not accept Turkish interference in Syria. That's the main problem ...

There are many Kurdish political parties inside Syria and they don't cooperate with either the Syrian government or opposition, they have chosen a third path, in the middle. For example in Aleppo, the Kurds decided to stay outside the fight because they see that the opposition in Syria is backed by Turkey. The opposition has not recognised Kurdish rights. They have not reached an agreement. So the Kurds in Syria have decided to stay neutral. But they also want change .... Generally speaking if the opposition recognise the rights of the Kurds in that area, then the Kurds might join the opposition there ...

Now the Kurds in the area are not fighting any battles or getting involved because their goal is not to take over the Damascus regime. The Kurds just want to have their own natural rights. This is the Kurdish reality .... We want a revolution and we are on the side of the revolution. But we believe in a different way of achieving the revolution. We do not support the regime, we are on the side of change and democracy ...

The region is heading towards a sectarian war. This is very dangerous. We will not get involved in the Sunni Shia divide. Kurds will stay neutral. We would like to see constructive politics. Turkey is trying to twist our position. Because they want to finish the PKK and they want us to become a target in the current war ...

It's a path for democracy and freedom that started in Tunisia and Egypt. We will take part in this path. The Kurds will not be anybody's army. We have to stay independent and work with the people. We will be on the side of democracy, if the West brings democracy we will take part in it. But if the West has hidden agendas then we will not take part. This is what we are preparing for ...

This is the time to end those kinds of regimes. Sooner or later they will fall. But the use of force alone will only bring more destruction now and later. Change is a must and Assad should not insist on staying in power."

I personally think that Kurds would be better off in a third column, but the current presentation of PYD as separate from but similarly aligned to the opposition is not terribly unreasonable. Other sources do support that Kurdish separatists have engaged in sporadic combat with government and sometimes opposition forces, so they may reasonably be considered combatants. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

There are Kurds fighting against the Syrian regime:

"Since the outbreak of the uprising against Assad in March 2011, Kurds have been split in their loyalties, some siding with the regime while others joined opposition protests." (http://articles.philly.com/2012-09-29/news/34164738_1_aleppo-neighborhood-syrian-observatory-syria-conflict) , "On September 27, 2012, Jigar ʿAbdurrahman Oso (b. 1981 in ʿAfrin) and Zuhair Hasan Muhammad (b. 1976 in ʿAfrin), members of the Kurdish Salahuddin-al‑Aiyubi battalion of the Free Syrian Army, were killed fighting members of the Democratic Union Party's (PYD) Peoples Protection Units in the village of Isko near ʿAfrin. " (http://www.kurdwatch.org/?aid=2660&z=en&cure=245) You have to note Kurds that are against the regime but not sympathic to the PYD forces, like the Salahuddin-al‑Aiyubi battalion. Kavas (talk) 11:17, 16 October 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:[18] 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. [19] 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[20], 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)

"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)

kurds (third column?)

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

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

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

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

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

• Support for a third column for the Kurdish forces, I think the problem raised before was one of "undue weight" however it seems obvious we cannot ignore the Kurdish presence any longer, and including them with the Syrian opposition lends "undue weight" to the opposition forces as they themselves are deeply divided and are fighting constantly now with the Kurdish population. Eko: more reports of Kurd-Opposition clashes - [21]. "opposition fighters repeatedly battled Kurdish militias this past week, adding fresh ethnic dimensions to a bloody civil war." The other issue was FutureTrillionaire complaining about "cluttering the infobox" but that is clearly nonsense and hasn't affected any other articles on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDjango (talk • contribs) 20:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Whatever we choose as a solution, the Kurds should certainly not be grouped with the FSA. They've fought more with them than with the Syrian army. FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

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

• Support third column. In the future, it might even be necessary to add a fourth column for the Islamists if they decide to conclusively break with the Syrian National Coalition. Here's an article about an ongoing battle in which hundreds of Kurds are fighting against rebel Islamists in Hasakeh province: [22] Esn (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

To make it more explicit, FunkMonk is talking about Turkey. The Kurds (or at least the PYD, the only Kurdish group with a substantial armed presence) have rejected the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces largely because they believe it to be too loyal to Turkey: [23]. Esn (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was discussed before, see: [24] FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note - As an outsider who was drawn here after reading the WP:ANI filed over this dispute, I will mirror the remarks of other editors and admins in the ANI stating that it appears no WP:Concensus or WP:FILIBUSTER has occurred. As well as no need for admin intervention. Finding an alternative such as the infobox or going to RfC might be your best bet. This poll has likely not met its intended purpose. Mkdw^talk 22:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Simplifying the infobox?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we're going to take OR-thodoxy to that extent, then: [25] [26].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR? See this: [27]-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All half-true. Open combat between Kurds and government forces is not common, as Father Funk says. This, however has more to do with the fact that the government does not want to waste resources and manpower fighting the Kurds than anything else. Like you said, it is also true that PYD/YPG have no love for Assad & co at this point. Government troops in e.g. Qamishlo are at the mercy of YPG fighters—basically caged in. As we saw in the fallout of Ras al-Ayn (is the truce still in effect there?), YPG can basically walk into a Kurdish town occupied by government troops, wave their hands, and the soldiers scurry off into the wilderness like roaches when the light is turned on. This very good overview of Kurdish participation by ISW refers to at least PYD/YPG as a "third force", while noting their touchy and at times antagonistic relationship with the KNC. Really, I think that this section should not speak of "Kurds" broadly construed, but rather the PYD as it is listed in the infobox. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Ras al-Ayn

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

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

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

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

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

It seems the FSA-Kurd clashes are being systematically downplayed around here. We have a long list of stub articles about minor clashes between rebels and the army where hardly anyone died (why do these[28][29][30] need articles?), so this one should be a no brainer. FunkMonk (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

An article in the French press announced a ceasefire in Ras al-Ayn. The source dealing exclusively with the Kurdish question, can I translate the article if you want http://www.actukurde.fr/actualites/390/cessez-le-feu-a-rass-al-ain.html Maurcich (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Kurds as combatant #3 again

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

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

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

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

I've also readded the note describing fighting between Kurds and rebel groups with a redirect to the 2012 Syrian Kurdistan conflict. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sheesh, we only have four guys disrupting this inevitable change over and over, because they want the Kurds to be "rebels". Can we cut to the point and get it done? There are practically no counterarguments, apart from the "undue weight" mantra, which is invalid. FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not True. First of All Ekograf and I also disagree. Second of all that "vote" did not discuss the issue of the valid point of undue weight of the third coloumn. The only person to oppose the double line solution or even the note solution was FunkMonk.Sopher99 (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't object to anything, look again. Why is it so important to have the Kurds and insurgents on the same side? No one outside of Wikipedia is fooled by that narrative anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You fellas are in a very clear minority, and are resorting to classic organized edit-warring to push through a two-column infobox against consensus. Most users favor a three-column solution as being more accurate. That's all I (or anyone) needs to know. And yes, I read the whole discussion. Seriously: people disagree with you - give it a rest already. -- Director (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That "vote" did not discuss the issue of undue weight of the third column. Second of all if you look a bit further we found a solution. That was much more agreed upon. And apparently Funkmunk says he didn't object to it. Sopher99 (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Look here:[31] The "clear minority" you're talking about made the vast majority of the edits on the article. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The current solution was only ever meant to be a temporary solution, until you guys had cooled off. FunkMonk (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, isn't that a convenient "logic" that allows you to have your way even if the entire planet happens to disagree :). No, Sopher, this project functions by WP:CONSENSUS. And this is not a factual dispute - so yes, "votes" matter. I've reverted you for the last time, next we'll take your edit war to the appropriate noticeboard. -- Director (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, you've already broken WP:3RR. Please stop adding the 3rd cloumn. The status quo remains until there's a real consensus. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote. The consensus has to adress all the problems at hand, not just "iz likz kurds to hav lots of notability". and if anything the fact that its not about fact vs fiction make it especially not a vote. Several users including Wustenfuchs and Lothar von agreed to the double line solution, let alone the note solution. And apparently Funkmonk doesn't oppose it either. Both solutions adress the issue of undue weight and correct implications (as well as wikipedia article patterns). Sopher99 (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Its not a vote, its valid arguments against your position supported by the vast majority of participants. You folks are simply bullying everyone. @Futuretrillionaire, the 3RR actually sets the limit at four reverts, not three. That's a limit I abide by.

The matter is now up on ANI [32]. -- Director (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• comment, placing all the opposition forces in one column doesn't mean, they all play by the same tune of "the enemy of my enemy...", that and in light of the minor part the kurds play in the conflict I'd rather have the two line solution aswell, with a readable infobox.--Mor2 (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a precedent. See Algerian civil war. FunkMonk (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

3RR is a brightline rule. Not 4 but 3. The fourth revert is what crosses the line. 3 is the limit. Having said that, also be aware that even a single edit can be an edit war and could incur sanctions. Consensus is a colaboration of all invloved and if a consensus is not reached the information is not changed.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Pardon, Amadscientist, but such has not been my experience in my several years on Wiki. What you're describing is a situation where users have a veritable veto on any changes to the article. In fact, if I remember correctly, policy explicitly points out that unanimous agreement is not at all required. -- Director (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well "IREKTOR" (if you want to drop a letter from my name expect it in return) I really have no idea what you are talking about. The rules are set and the limit is three and it really does look as if you crossed that line. As for as a single edit being an edit war....take that chance if you wish. No skin off my nose if you recieve a temp block really. And consensus is indeed a colaboration and is not a unanimous agreement. If you don't fully understand that I can point you to the guideline or policy if you would care to tell me what you are disagreeing with exactly. Consensus is not a vote, it is what all editors can live with. Yes, if no consensus is gained, the content is not altered. Sorry for being curt, but we have the guidelines to guide us.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You say that consensus "is not a unanimous agreement", then turn around and say "it is what all editors can live with". So which is it? Not unanimous, or agreeable to all? Can't have it both ways. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"Agreeing" is different from being able to "live with it". example: "I can live with something that I don't agree with." -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, since we're discussing the subject, I thought WP:WHATISCONSENSUS might help.

"Consensus is not the same as unanimity. Every discussion should involve a good faith effort to hear and understand each other. But after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best. Sometimes a rough consensus is enough to move forward.

Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system, as well as tendentious editing. There is even a three revert rule to limit efforts to stonewall the editing process.

Editors should make a good faith effort to reach a consensus. That means that the dissenting party has to state how the current proposal fails to meet the interests of the wider group, rather than merely stating they will not accept it. But after a good faith discussion, sometimes the dissenting party must consent to move forward even if they disagree with the specific course of action."

— WP:NOTUNANIMITY

-- Director (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in other words, consensus is not a vote and is not a unanimous agreement (some may still not agree but will live with it). It does not require all agree on the same thing. When a consenus discussion is begun there may be no consensus reached. In that case policy dictates that the change not be made. it isn't that hard to understand and I think DIREKTOR is getting there.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If you took a break from patronizing me, Amadscientist, you might notice I have about double your contributions on this project. I for one here do not require self-contradictory and inaccurate "clarifications" of the above sort, and I dare say very few do. First you implied that consensus requires that all be satisfied. Then you contradicted yourself in claiming that all need be satisfied, but not really, and now you appear to be attempting to rationalize said erroneous interpretations. What do votes have to do with consensus not requiring unanimous consent?

Quite simply: WP:CONSENSUS does not, in fact, require unanimous agreement. Not by any means. And 3RR was specifically designed to protect against WP:TE of the sort we have here (among other reasons). Naturally, bare votes are not acceptable on the project, but the above long and detailed discussion can by no means be characterized as merely a process of participants casting votes. I submit the above discussion is a textbook example of a user consensus, grounded in very sound arguments, that is being blocked by three users engaged in WP:TENDENTIOUS EDITING. -- Director (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that is not at all accurate. I really don't care what the amount of contributions are that you have. I was not patronizing you, just stating that you seem to be getting it now. You didn't seem to be getting it before. What you described is no consensus. If you can demonstrate that there is a consensus....please do. As for others, you could just report the 3RR violation and let the admins decide whether or not DIREKTOR is in violation. If not, that is fine as well. But it doesn't seem to be discouraging anything.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(I'm sorry, your {{User MAWcustom}} template seemed to suggest you do care about such things.)

I didn't actually describe anything. I merely pointed to the above discussion, where one finds twelve users arguing in support of the edit, with three opposing it. Of course, there is no clear definition of a "consensus" in terms of user support, but imo a 4:1 ratio, with the participation of about twenty users is about as strong a consensus as any one could possibly get on an article about a current civil war. The rejection thereof by the users in question suggests that they have no intention of ever budging on this issue, regardless of the amount of support this logical step gains. It is, in my opinion at least, textbook TE. -- Director (talk) 04:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I am a firm believer in rough consensus. if you can demonstarte (something you have yet to do) that there is reason to dismiss these three opinions as not being relevant to the discussion than you can claim a rough consensus. But to do that you most show that the three editors have not demonstrated a good faith effort to disagree. You claim it....but that is not enough.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

One can only review the discussion, evaluate, and offer an opinion as an entirely impartial outsider. Which is basically what I'm doing. I'm not sure what exactly it is you require? -- Director (talk) 04:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If you can't, or are unwilling to demonstrate what it is that you claim, then you are not on the strongest footing. And, by the way, you are involved and are not an outsider.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Literally the only people complaining about the stall DIREKTOR are you and Funkmunk. On the other side, future, me, and EkoGraf are very much engaged in making sure there is no third column, and you know what else, we are the top 3 contributors so it makes sense that we will be actively engaged in denying a third column. I should further point out the two columns system is long-standing. When there is no debate consensus, Status quo remains especially for long standing content Sopher99 (talk) 04:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Argumentum ad verecundiam. On the contrary, I'd think that heavily-involved editors would be the most entrenched in their bias and so unlikely to change. There's a reason why WP:3O is a popular and effective means of dispute resolution—uninvolved editors can see past the stubbornness of the regulars and cut to the heart of the matter. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Implying we have bias. Future and Ekograf have never been accused of bias. I on the otherhand have been accused countless times. But thats only because I am the most dramatic. The top editors should through experience know what is undue weight, pov pushing, and notable inside and out.Sopher99 (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Bias against change. Sentimentality, conscious or unconscious, towards the article that "they" built. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Even a single editor that has not accepeted the content may dispute it....but there are venues for it. I suggest Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard as the best venue to dispute content.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

They may dispute it, but that is not the same as filibuster its implementation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not a filibuster because 12 users including 4 users who don't return to the talkpage and 4 anon ips doesn't say wikipedia-style consensus, especially if they do not address the issues behind the so called filibuster. Sopher99 (talk) 05:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The 2 week 47-32 vote we had on including iran and alqaeda in the infobox was consensus. Sopher99 (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Issues of weight etc. were repeatedly addressed, but y'all didn't seem to be listening. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

We listened, but the explanations for how a third column is not undue were not convincing. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a fine line.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The rebel clashes with the kurds happened for a week. This entire conflict is in its 91st week. The rebel-kurdish clashes killed less than 50 people. The death toll right now for this conflict is 42,000. 50,000+ if you include government soldiers. Sopher99 (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, so if its all about numbers, consider how many FSA the Kurds have killed compared to how many Syrian soldiers they have killed. By this logic, they would fit better on the regime side than what we have now. That, or leaving them out entirely, would make more sense than dumping them with the insurgents. FunkMonk (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

48 known soldiers and 65 known rebels. Okay i was wrong the death toll slightly surpasses 100. Keep this in mind, the rebels have an activist network who report death tolls, the soldiers do not report death tolls to the public. Whats the most important is that the YPG seized land from the government and made peace and cooperation deals. Furthermore the KNC joined the SNC today. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Syrian_Kurdistan_conflict Sopher99 (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If you'll look carefully, you'll see that it is the PYD and not the KNC in the infobox. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

KSC will be member of NC. Their representatives will be from KNC only but KSC decisions are 50/50 between PYD and KNC. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way Funkmunk, I am fine with taking out the Kurds from the infobox and replacing it with a note in the infobox that clashes have occured several times with Kurdish groups, and linking the page to the Kurdistan conflict. Sopher99 (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not a compromise, that's a more radical iteration of your own position. As I said before. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it? We didn't even have the kurds in the infobox period a few months ago. Its not a longstanding thing. I clearly stated that we would keep the mention of kurds in the infobox, just not in any one side but more as an obvious note. Sopher99 (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Having a third column for the Kurds just because of a few minor clashes is greatly undue. It gives readers the impression that the Kurdish role in the conflict is equal to that of the Syrian govt and the FSA, when in reality, the vast majority of the fighting in this conflict is done by the latter two parties. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

@FunkMonk The Iraq War article "dumped" the Sunni and Shia insurgents together, and the level of fighting between those two groups is far greater than that seen between the Kurds and the rebels/jihadists. People were okay with that format for years. Why can't this article be treated similarly? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll repeat my counterexamples, which you ignored earlier: Slovenia cleared Yugoslav forces out of its territory in ten days, losing less than 20 soldiers, but they still make it into the Yugoslav Wars infobox. The Central Powers suffered a tiny fraction of the massive casualties of the Russian Civil War and exited the fight years before it ended, but still get themselves a third column. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Bad examples. Those third parties were nations-states, completely different organizationally and politically from insurgents (which the Kurds are). By the way, the only filibuster going on here is the one aimed at my bed time. zzzz...-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 05:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick note. According to this article, the Kurds are preparing to create their own independent army. "The main goal of our army is to protect the territory of Syrian Kurdistan from any armed intervention, whether Assad's forces or Islamist militant groups." Esn (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be the PYD, because there are many Kurds who are fighting with the Syrian National Coalition(although most reports lump them together).--Mor2 (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Nah, that would be Peshmerga which is under auspice of Barzani whose main arm in Rojava is KNC. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

@FutureTrillionaire - it is completely irrelevant whether the third faction in a conflict are nation states, transnational empires, provinces, principalities, militant groups, rebel factions etc. It matters not at all whether the combatant authority is small or large (by your "expert opinion"). What matters is that they're an independent combatant, engaging in conflict with both sides. Nothing else. And they are. By the way, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, Baltic German volunteers and the Freikorps are not "nation states". -- Director (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note - (to reiterate) As an outsider who was drawn here after reading the WP:ANI filed over this dispute, I will mirror the remarks of other editors and admins in the ANI stating that it appears no WP:Concensus or WP:FILIBUSTER has occurred. As well as no need for admin intervention. Finding an alternative such as the infobox or going to RfC might be your best bet. Mkdw^talk 22:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I stated my opinion before and I state it again. Put a double separation line between the Kurds and the others and put the note that points to and links to the FSA-Kurdish conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Third row in Mali

The Northern Mali conflict (2012–present) infobox has three separate rows, though the infighting between the "rebel" forces are minuscule. Whoops, wasn't that the argument against a third row for Kurds here? FunkMonk (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No replies yet? I can almost hear the hard thinking up of bogus excuses. And note that our friend Futuretrillionaire was in support of the three rows there. Just a tiny double standard. Internal divisions are only allowed for the "bad rebels" in Mali, not the "good" ones we have in Syria. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You are completely oblivious to the very reason why we don't have three rows.

Undue. Weight.

Islamists and Taurags have almost equal participation. In fact The taurags even started the fight.

Kurds have less than 1% of the share of the fighting in Syria.

To be exact. 150 deaths on both sides from fighting with Kurds/60,000+ = .0025 or .25%

Kurds only hold maximum .25% of this entire conflict.

When we take the amount of times Kurds are mentioned in reliable media covering Syrian civil war, and compare to media coverage overall, that number is even less.

Sopher99 (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Lol, and there we have it, right on time. So the long wait was because Sopher had to make "the numbers" add up on his calculator. I see, the details of a war are determined by numbers. In fact, this entire page seems to be testament to the fact that terms can be redefined to serve an agenda. Israel cannot be part of the infobox, because external factions need to make a "certain number" of attacks. A war faction can't be considered separate because it has not contributed with a "certain percentage" of fighting. These minimum amounts of involvement are then again determined by Sopher, Futuretrillionaire, or whoever else that fancies himself an Internet revolutionary. Are you fucking kidding me? And as far as I remember, the only person who kept raving about "undue weight" was yourself, so I fail to see how that can be the reason for anything. The third row was reverted simply because you and three others didn't like it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

We didn't like it because of Undue Weight. The Kurds are not against rebels, they just want to be left alone from both rebels and government. Since the rebels are not a government, and Kurds have to fight the government to be left alone, they go on the same column as rebels.

Nothing here is "decided" by me, by the way. However, since I am a very frequent editor of this page and talkpage, the chances of my voice being a key point in a debate is much more likelier, than lets say, some one who doesn't actively participate in the talkapge. Sopher99 (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Math and logic alone does not dictate undue weight. The kurds have less than 1% of reliable media attention too. Sopher99 (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The Kurds have killed more rebels than army soldiers, and are fighting way more with them than with the government. This means that they are against them. But here the NUMBERS and PERCENTAGES don't count, apparently! You're taking revisionism to another level, it is nothing less than absurd. FunkMonk (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

On contrare. 65 rebels died, compared to 49 soldiers died (as well as 37 defected), does not scream blatant anti-rebel ideology. especially because most of those 65 rebels were mujihideen attackers as compared to the Kurds attacking the government. More rebels were killed by mujihideen than Kurds. So such low numbers don't tell us much, but they are compared with huge numbers like 60,000 you have a much more confident answer. Sopher99 (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Soldiers killed by the FSA are counted together with those few killed by the Kurds, so that just might be the problem, don't you think? At least the Mali article makes sure which faction was attacked by who. In any case, your arguments are invalid, no one is arguing the Kurds are with the government, but that they are with neither, hence a third row. It seems your "logic" dictates that since the Kurds are not aligned with the government, they must be aligned with the rebels. Which is preposterous. FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

They are against the government, and would not like to bothered by the rebels. But mujihideen insist on intruding, so clashes erupt. We do not deny that Kurds are fighting rebels, a bit, and so we put that note below the kurdish part of the box.

None of which matter by the way, because none of your reasonings solve the reason behind no third column in the first place. Undueweight. We can just as easily take out the Kurds from the infobox, and instead expand info in the "kurdish section" of the main article.

Whatever it is, we are not putting 1% at equal weight with 99%. 00:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Your numbers don't matter. Since when has the factional alignments shown on a Wikipedia war article been determined by some guy sitting at home making calculations? Who are you trying to kid? The Kurd are not with the government, and not with the rebels. This is an indisputable fact. "Undue weight" is a figment of your imagination, not supported by anyone else in previous discussions. So you better try to come up with something better than ridiculous math and false interpretations of past non-consensus. FunkMonk (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There is really no reason why the PYD should be lumped with the rebels—even the rebels don't want anything to do with them. Keep in mind that it was the rebels who attacked Ras al-Ayn, and didn't stop when the skeletal government force ran—they turned right on the PYD who were the dominant force in the city. This report by AJE makes it pretty clear that so long as the rebels keep deliberately attacking Kurds, the PYD/YPG will have nothing to do with them. And at this point, it's clear that the fighting in Ras al-Ayn isn't some separate jihadi campaign. For maybe the KNC, putting it in the same column is kind of reasonable, but given how the PYD/YPG is known for terrorising people who dare even display the FSA flag on their turf, putting them as on the same side as the rebels is just plain stupid, no matter how many times you squawk about "undue weight". This isn't a question of weight—if they're so insignificant, then why include them in the first place? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

We can remove them if you guys want. Sopher99 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Or better yet we can remove the Kurds and replace it with "28 Kuridsh YPG members killed in varios clashes" at the casualty section Sopher99 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Either one is fine. We just can't put a third column, as that would assume equal weight with rebels and government forces, despite the fact they make up less than 1% of the situation in Syria. Sopher99 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we can "just put a third column", your personal opinion is irrelevant. "Equal weight" is irrelevant, they're not on the same side, for God's sake. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Many fractions of the FSA are allied to the Kurds. They are on the same side. Second of all, putting a third column is undue weight. It is not undue weight though to remove the Kurds/or simply put them in the infobox by just stating the 28 Kurdish casualties and providing a link to the Kurdistan conflict. Sopher99 (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Please actually take a look at who is listed in the infobox. Does it say "Kurds"? No, it does not. It lists the PYD-YPG. Please present an argument for why the PYD should be treated as more rebel than government and not a party unto itself. Secondly, impact on a war is not measured by casualties—which in the case of the PYD are largely self-reported and likely lower than in actuality—so please stop trying to force-feed us that red herring. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk)

Nothing was timed. I always come back to the Syria wikipedia pages around 7:00PM my time to update the death toll on the timelines. Not to mention make sure the pages aren't being "involuntarily" vandalized. Sopher99 (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Why are we having this debate again? There was no consensus from the previous one, and I don't expect another one in this discussion. The situation with the Kurds hasn't changed much since then. Just keep it the way it is until the situation significantly changes.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it was filibustered by you and like two other people until the debate abruptly stopped. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

ICANTHEARYOU does not apply here especially because its the proponents on the third row who are ignoring the fact that adding a third column is undue weight. If you want the Kurds to be removed or summed up in the casualty section, thats fine with me, and if FutureTrillionaire agrees to it as well, there would be consensus. Sopher99 (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight isn't relevant, and looks like an awfully silly argument anyway when you consider that higher quality (=non-journalistic) sources address the topic in detail, like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace calling it "The Rise of Syria's Kurds" and the Institute for the Study of War publishing a 16-page document devoted to the PYD and the Kurdish side of the conflict, referring to the PYD as a "powerful third force". The reason why news media addresses them in less detail is because A) there has been less fighting going on in West Kurdistan due to the government withdrawing from most areas B) it's more isolated and C) Western powers tend to sidestep Kurdish issues for fear of peeving the Turks, and especially so with the PYD, who are the Syrian equivalent of the PKK.

There is nothing insignificant about a force that exercises control—and arguably more efficiently and safely than the rebels—over vast swathes of territory and prevents both other sides from entering by force when necessary. "Insignificant" is not measured by blood spilt—which isn't too reliably measured anyway. Additionally, you've failed to respond to any of my points in my last comment in the long thread above. And since when did decisions become some sort of triumvirate decision between the three of us? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. -- Director (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

If FutureTrillionaire and myself are opposing you, Director and Funkmunk in a debate, FutureTrillionaire and myself make up within the vacinity of 1/3 to half of voice of reason. If me and FutureTrillionaire were to agree with you and Funkmonk, there would be 0 opposition. I hope this clarifies things. Sopher99 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No one said Kurds are Insignificant. They are just not significant to have a third row in a civil war whose 99% of the fighting and conflict is between government and rebels.

The Leader of the PYD does not recognize that it is fighting FSA at all. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/world/middleeast/syrias-kurds-try-to-balance-security-and-alliances.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Sopher99 (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

“Those groups attacking Serekaniye, we don’t consider them as Free Syrian Army,” said Saleh Muslim, the leader of the P.Y.D. Instead, he said the groups that attacked “are mainly just taking orders from the Turkish regime.”

The Free Syrian Army “is a name, or a trademark, not registered to anybody,” said Mr. Muslim. “So anybody can come from his home and get a hold of some weapons and say, ‘I am Free Syrian Army.”’ Sopher99 (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Members of the new bloc have started to field militias, with Mr. Jumaa saying the union has about 1,500 fighters in Syria and will ultimately take control of thousands more troops being trained by Kurdistan Regional Government forces, the Peshmerga, in Iraq.

Mustafa Jumaa, who leads the Azadi Party, one of the factions in the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union, said the alliance had been formed out of frustration with the inability of the Kurdish National Council to make decisions.

Like others in his alliance, Mr. Jumaa holds a mostly favorable view of the mainstream Syrian opposition and the Free Syrian Army, which he referred to as “a national army for Syria.” Sopher99 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The NY times article released today definitively shows the PYD is more pro-rebel than any of us knew. It also shows the Kurds do not recognize the Ras al Ain attackers from Turkey as true opposition. This solidify's the position of double line on the rebel column. Sopher99 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

In turn, there is ample evidence to say that the rebels in Ras al-Ayn do not recognise the PYD as being "revolutionary", but rather as puppets of Assad. And while Mr. Muslim may not regard the rebels in Ras al-Ayn as "FSA", his forces in e.g. Aleppo haven't proven themselves keen on any sort of collaboration with rebel units in that city, who are more unambiguously "FSA". Additionally, in cities like Qamishli and Hasakah, government troops and YPG fighters maintain essentially peaceful, side-by-side security presences in the city—this notably does not occur between the PYD-YPG and Arab rebel groups. On the other hand, in Aleppo, the government bombed PYD-YPG districts last month, killing over 20 Kurdish civilians, including several children. The relationships are incredibly complex, and shunting them into the "rebel" column glosses over them—they are equidistant from both sides in alignment. "Undue weight" is an argument to be considered if we are talking about whether or not they should be included, but when it comes to their alignment, it's really quite meaningless. "Weight"—undue or otherwise—does not determine a group's alignment in a conflict—that is a matter of factual accuracy, first and foremost. The current infobox is factually inaccurate.

And again, we aren't talking about all Kurdish groups, but specifically the PYD. The Democratic Union is a recently-formed bloc of Kurdish parties who politically oppose the PYD. As of late, one of its larger constituent parties, Yekîtî, has been trying to build up a military wing and has been getting in scraps with YPG militia as a result. The PYD is the dominant party in West Kurdistan, both politically and militarily, and generally seeks to keep it that way. Actions of KNC, Azadî, Yekîtî, or other parties should not be treated as evidence of the alignment of the PYD. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You ignoring the fact that this was just "any muslim can say", this was the 'leader of the PYD". Furthermore they don't recognize them as being from the FSA, but rather people highered by Turkey. Sopher99 (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Lol. Please read what I said again. I said "Mr. Muslim" as in Salih Muslim Muhammad. And they "recognise" them—including the popular rebel unit Jabhat al-Nusra—as being hired by Turkey because it views Turkey behind any plot against Kurds, not because of any confirmed link. FWIW, Turkey is a major rebel supporter—hence its inclusion in the infobox. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

We already have a note that says "For fighting between Kurdish and rebel groups, see 2012 Syrian Kurdistan conflict" right below the PYD listing. It's pretty obvious for readers that the PYD and the rebels are not allies. I still don't see any real need for a 3rd column. And as Sopher pointed out in the NYT article, the Kurdish leaders don't consider the opposition to be an enemy (yet?).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

FutureTrillionaire, what is not obvious from the infobox layout is the fact that the rebels and the Kurds are in conflict. It is absurd beyond belief to have a 2012–2013 Syrian Kurdistan conflict article that uses three columns, but a Syrian civil war article - which includes it - with two columns. It is even more difficult to believe that anyone could seriously advocate depicting this conflict through a silly note, when the infobox layout specifically provides for a depiction of such a conflict. In other words, there is no reason whatsoever to include the Kurdish faction in the right-hand column rather than the left-hand column. Its a highly biased, propagandistic depiction of the conflict ("yes the Kurds fight both of them, but its the government they really hate don't ya know.."). Unsourced nonsense.

We have an infobox that includes Qatar, a non-participant that supports the rebels, but excludes Israel - who've been bombing targets in Syria and were involved in border clashes with the Syrian Army.

The pro-rebel POV is so thick you can barely see the article; and every change is being stonewalled. Something really has to be done.. -- Director (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• We need a "request for comment" or some such to get fresh eyes to look at this. Sopher and friends wouldn't give the Kurdish forces a third row even if they proclaimed full independence. FunkMonk (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking more like ARBCOM.. :) but yeah, anything at all would be a good idea. -- Director (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If they declared full independence that would only enhance my position. Declaring full Independence is declaring full opposition to the government. Sopher99 (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, but I have to say this: you're a partisan POV-pusher, Sopher. And no matter what the situation happened to be on the ground, you would still find ways to interpret it as "enhancing your position". Thank you for making that plain. -- Director (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not a partisan POV-pusher. Its a simple fact that if you declare Independence your declaring freedom from the government. Last time I checked the Syrian government were not the rebels. Sopher99 (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

'Facepalm'. If they declared full independence, Erdogan would have even more reason to unleash his Nusra dogs upon them. Arcbcom or request for comment is the way to go at this point, Sopher has displayed a complete lack of judgement/extreme POV-pushery. FunkMonk (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

How about we be more specific about the Kurds.

The PKK militia fights the rebels. So lets put the PKK on the Syrian goverment's side.

The KNC's forces, the PYD's forces, and the recently formed "Azadi" militia fight the goverment. So lets put them on the rebels's side.

For both cases we can list them under "support" if you would like. Sopher99 (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There's no PKK in Syria, we've been over this. There is the PYD, which is the Syrian affiliate of the PKK. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You still ignore the following point: THEY ALL FIGHT BOTH SIDES. Neither is aligned with either faction. FunkMonk (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No. -- Director (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Because...? Sopher99 (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

...because, unless I'm very much mistaken, the KNC and the PYD also fight the rebels, just to a lesser extent. -- Director (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The PYD doesn't recognize that its fighting the FSA in Ras al Ain. The KNC has long been a supporter of the direct Syrian opposition, never came into conflict. The Azadi militia of 1,500 fighters was formed last month, hasn't fought yet, but declared support for FSA as a "national army". The PKK have been arresting activists and working has part-time government militia before Summer of 2012. Sopher99 (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

THERE IS NO PKK IN SYRIA. ONLY PYD. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Declarations don't matter with regard to the infobox layout. It doesn't matter who "recognizes" what. Factions are divided into columns exclusively according to with whom they are in conflict. Nothing else matters.

According to the situation you describe, the PYD should be in the third column, while the KNC should be in the second. The Azadi militia should not be in there at all. -- Director (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Three columns are undue weight. I would much rather move the Kurd's to the government's side and just specifiy underneath the battle of Ras al Ain. Atleast that won't be blatant undue weight. Sopher99 (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)It has nothing to do with "weight". PYD and rebels don't give two shits about wikipolicy when they're killing each other. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Stop misquoting policy. And if you move my posts about again out of their context, in spite of prior warnings, rest assured you will be immediately reported. -- Director (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I have a diff showing I "moved your post". Sopher99 (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. -- Director (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you link to me the policy page which forbids me from making intentions above another's comment, particularly a comment being addressed to that user? Sopher99 (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nah, typical double standard issue that sadly happened very usually in WP. It seems that adding a 3rd row depends on the ideology of the major editors...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Third row for Kurdish forces

Kurdish factions in the Syrian civil war have generally not aligned themselves with either the Syrian government or the rebels, so it has been proposed several times before that they should have a third row for themselves in the infobox, since they fight both of those factions.[33][34][35] There is precedent in the article 2012–2013 Syrian Kurdistan conflict, as well as in the Northern Mali conflict (2012–present) and Algerian civil war, which have the exact same or similar division of factions. However, though the prior discussion has favoured a third row, three or four users keep reverting the change without any valid explanation, though "undue weight" is being repeated over and over by one editor. So we would like some fresh eyes to look through the issue. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Simple question: Should the Kurdish forces be listed in a third column, or keep it as it is?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Involved editors' comments

• Introduce third column. The current infobox is grossly biased in favor of the rebel factions. The current layout downplays the fact that the Kurds are in conflict with the rebels, and deliberately avoids utilizing the template parameters introduced precisely for the purpose of depicting said confrontation - in favor of a silly note. It is absurd beyond belief to have a 2012–2013 Syrian Kurdistan conflict article with three columns, but a Syrian civil war article - which includes said conflict, with two columns. Its a highly biased, propagandistic depiction of the conflict ("yes the Kurds fight both of them, but its the government they really hate don't ya know..").

This is just the most glaring issue, but the problems here are legion. We have, for example, an infobox that includes Qatar, a non-participant that supports the rebels, but excludes Israel - who've been bombing targets in Syria and were involved in border clashes with the Syrian Army. All apparently to avoid the appearance of Israeli association with the rebels. -- Director (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Israel isn't the focus of the RfC, and FWIW Israel doesn't doesn't want to be associated with the rebels either [36]. But let's stick to the PYD as long as we're here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

To uninvolved users: Please read the discussion below before commenting.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Handing out required reading, FT? -- Director (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Or don't, actually. We'd rather you participate than run away screaming and making the sign of the cross. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that well-penned remark. Nice to see deep comments that move the debate along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.87.170 (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep it as two columns The Valid explanation is that three columns are undue weight. Deaths from Kurdish conflict represent under 1% of the deaths (150 out of 60,000+) over all. The amount Kurdish fighters (4,500) represent around 1% of the amount of fighter overall (approx 400,000) in the conflict. The Kurds have only began fighting the pass 6 months. If you put a third column the reader will assume that the conflict is equally about the kurds as is the rebel or government. Kurds have an extreme minority involvement, one not worth a third column. Sopher99 (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That is not a valid argument. The "small number of deaths" does not mean that there is no fighting, and most recent news items suggest there is at least weekly fighting between Kurds and rebel force. FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

But what fighting there is pales in comparison to the fighting between the other groups. Making a third column is undue weight. It is better to just elabaorate in the main article the sub-conflict. Sopher99 (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That is not an argument, that is your subjective opinion, based on no precedents at all. Lets remove America from the infobox of Battle of Mogadishu (1993), because only 18 Americans died! FunkMonk (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

But 1000+ somalis were killed by American. I am saying 150 were killed on "all three sides" Sopher99 (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)"Weight" determines whether or not they are included in the first place. After that bar of inclusion is crossed, it becomes a matter of factual accuracy. PYD and rebels in Ras al-Ayn don't take into account wikipolicy as they kill each other. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article." Sopher99 (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop the barrage of misquoted policy and guidelines. This has nothing to do with UW, and that quote just above refers to not listing too many participants in the infobox, it does not advise against depicting a three sided conflict as three sided. Ridiculous.. -- Director (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I was actually talking to FunkMunk with that one. But apparently I am not allowed to post-indent. Sopher99 (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sopher has a way with flimsy numbers, as noted above. But that is irrelevant here, what matters is what published sources say and precedent, not what some guy sits at home and discovers on his calculator. All sources agree the Kurds are an important fighting force in this war. All sources also agree the Kurds are not aligned with either other faction. End of story, they belong in their own row. FunkMonk (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Kurds are important. But no where near as important by both action and sources as the rebels and government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article." We don't have to' include Kurds in the infobox in the first place. Sopher99 (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'd note that we're specifically talking about the PYD/YPG here as opposed to Kurds in general. As for the "numbers" argument, one need only look at Slovenia's inclusion in the Yugoslav Wars infobox to see why that's not relevant either. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed. What matters is that Kurds are in conflict with the rebels, and should therefore be placed in a separate column. Plain and simple. None of these excuses really matter at all with regard to the huge breach of NPOV. -- Director (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Slovenia doesn't have a third column there. Its Aligned with Croatia. Sopher99 (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No its not, actually. Its separated by a horizontal line. -- Director (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Much like the mujihideen. Sopher99 (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The point of the example is that Slovenia was a very marginal participant, and was still included. With its position depicted. The Mujahideen fight together with the Free Syrian Army, and therefore do not require separation. -- Director (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Slovenia is a country of its owns, unlike the Kurds. Furthermore the specific year is listed next to them. Thats international war. Sopher99 (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually it was considered to have been a civil war at that (early) point. And the Syrian National Coalition are a country of their own? More nonsense.

The only relevant fact is that the Kurds are in conflict with the rebels. The rest of your fake arguments and excuses are utterly irrelevant ("this is international war, this is something else, undue weight...") -- Director (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

See also Algerian Civil War for precedent. One rebel faction gets its own row, and it is not even made clear if their number of death reach Sopher's declared absolute minimum. FunkMonk (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)No, Slovenia was a constituent part of Yugoslavia which seceded to become independent. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That Algeria third row is more undue weight than a Kurdish third column. No known casualties or known army strength does not make it a legitimate combatant. Sopher99 (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

So I guess you'll go and remove it then? FunkMonk (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight determines whether or not something is included in the first place. Stop conflating it with facts. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Some one reading the third row would automatically assume the civil war is just as much about Kurds as it is rebels or government. They will think the Kurds are fighting everywhere in Syria, and were fighting since the beginning. Sopher99 (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous. You're grasping at straws now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh, then we can have one of your beloved notes to explain they don't "fight all over Syria", eh? And is what you "think other people might think" more important than factual accuracy? And why don't you just come clear and say that you simply don't want the infobox to clearly show that the Kurds are against the rebels under any circumstances? FunkMonk (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If this was about defending the image of the rebels. The Kurds would not be my first choice of removal. The PFLP would be be. And I don't remember resisting that. As I said, putting Kurds in a third row makes it look like this is purely a three way conflict, like in the Lebanese civil war. its not. 99% of fighting and casualties is between rebels and government. 97% of towns and villages don't even have kurds. Sopher99 (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I repeat, your self-made numbers and percentages, which are original research by the way, are irrelevant. What matters is what is actually being reported by the news. All sources agree the Kurds are an important fighting force in this war. All sources also agree the Kurds are not aligned with either other faction. As for the PFLP, I have no doubt you would remove them if you could find even the slightest excuse. Too bad you can't. FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No source says they are a primary or distinct side in the war. And many sources declare amity between Kurds and FSA, such as the ny times article released today. Sopher99 (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

And I quote Lothar in the former thread: "sources address the topic in detail, like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace calling it "The Rise of Syria's Kurds" and the Institute for the Study of War publishing a 16-page document devoted to the PYD and the Kurdish side of the conflict, referring to the PYD as a "powerful third force"." FunkMonk (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

These are not anywhere near common media. These two sources from think tanks don't decide anything. Sopher99 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)\

ie it mean an extreme minority of sources, and certainly no media coverage sources, report them as the third major force. Sopher99 (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Do a Google search for "reuters kurds syria". All reports describe them as a third war party with no alignments, despite futile attempts at outreach by the SNC. FunkMonk (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• This discussion is perhaps moot. The point was to attract outside voices, so perhaps we should give it a rest until someone new joins (could take more than 24 hours it seems). The regulars here won't get nowhere, as we have seen. FunkMonk (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Laying some critical points here:

First off, we're specifically debating the PYD and its armed wing, the YPG—that which is currently listed in the infobox. Groups like Yekîtî, Azadî, and the KNC are ultimately extraneous to this debate.

Second, "undue weight" concerns itself with which factions are to be mentioned in the infobox in the first place. Once a faction is significant enough to be in the infobox, the question then turns to how should we align them. Alignment in a conflict has nothing to do with wikirules. YPG forces do not take into account any of our policies while they fight with rebels in Ras al-Ayn or Aleppo, nor when they fight the army around Hasakah's oil fields. "Weight" is something we made up and does not define the situation on the ground. Now, the order in which groups within a side are presented falls under the domain of weight—but that is the tertiary concern. When it comes to deciding factional alignments, we must look at the facts presented to us in the sources (cf. ISW's detailed research which describes the PYD as a "powerful third force"). The current infobox is just plain factually incorrect—any allegations of "pro-rebel bias" aside. (I should note that I myself have been accused, rightly or wrongly, of "pro-rebel bias" in the past—but observe my position here!)

Third, death tolls and other numbers are not per se evidence of insignificance. If low casualties and marginal participation made a group insignificant and thus of "low weight", then we should not see e.g. Slovenia in the Yugoslav Wars infobox. Like the PYD in Syria, Slovenia was a case of a secessionist group quickly establishing itself as separate from the extant state apparatus (in this case Yugoslavia). Like the PYD in Western Kurdistan, it established territorial control over its desired area relatively quickly and with minimal bloodshed, due largely to the state apparatus (Syria/Yugoslavia) not wanting to expend military resources on a side (Slovenia/PYD) that could be spent on more volatile combatants ("non-Serbs"/"Arab opposition"). But despite the relative peacefulness of the transition in both areas, the fact that both sides threw off the established order to set up their own administration—that is, seceding—means that they partook significantly in the conflict. For the PYD, the key difference is that they have fought other insurgent groups to a similar extent that they have fought the state—it goes beyond Slovenia's effective non-alignment with Croats/Bosniaks/etc. Furthermore, Kurds make up 15% (cf. [37]) of Syria's population, and are present in significant numbers in the two largest cities. Their dominant political/military organ (the PYD/YPG, the focus of this discussion) controls and administers a large portion of the largest city (Aleppo) separately from any of the other two sides. This is to speak nothing of other parts of Aleppo province, and especially Hasakah, where the PYD/YPG runs the show in most areas. No, they aren't evenly distributed across the country, but what minority group is in any country? Slovenia(ns) occupied a comparatively small area on the extreme end of Yugoslavia and accounted for ~10% of the population (I'm using modern populations of the former Yugoslav states for this estimate, but my point stands).

To sum up—there is no coherent argument to keep the PYD/YPG shunted into the rebel column. Sopher's various arguments pertaining to "undue weight" are a bizarre Frankenstein job of half-rotten parts of extraneous arguments. The PYD/YPG unambiguously needs a separate third column. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem with ongoing conflicts is that without academic and professional sources defining the scope of the term "Syrian civil war", what we are doing here, trying to figure out the scope of the term and which combatants it applies to is borderline WP:OR. The impression I get is that the term "Syrian civil war" is usually used to refer the struggle between Assad's government and the forces trying to overthrow it. The Kurdish conflict, the Lebanese conflict and others are more like spillovers/impact of the "Syrian civil war", not part of the main conflict.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, Lothar's claim that the ISW said the Kurds are a powerful third force is a lie. It said: "As of november 2012, the PYD appears determined to establish itself as a powerful third force in Syria, willing to confront Turkey, the Arab opposition, and the Assad regime." The ISW said the Kurds might be trying to establish itself as a third force, but hasn't yet, and it hasn't confronted Turkey, the Arab opposition, and the Assad regime yet either.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Turkey maybe not (Assad himself hasn't proven himself keen on that either), but certainly rebels who enter from Turkey and the government [38]. And "spillover conflict" within a country's own borders? Laughable. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Again, I repeat, and no one has refuted this. There's already a note below the Kurds listing, so there's no need for 3rd column, especially considering the undue weight. Notes are used in the infoboxes of the Iraq War article, the WWII article, and many others. Since there's no professional source defining the scope of the term "Syrian civil war", there isn't much we can do except wait for the situation to change/clarify.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Its broke, and it needs fixin', as it doesn't show the Kurds in conflict with the rebels, which is a very-well documented fact. The infobox columns are there to separate factions in conflict with one-another. If it is sourced that factions are fighting each-other, they cannot be placed in the same column. According to the "there are no sources defining the scope" nonsense argument, it follows we would need to remove the infobox, or at best place everyone in one column, because hey - who knows if the rebels are fighting the government..

In avoiding the standard and appropriate depiction of said conflict, the current infobox is in gross violation of WP:NPOV. This is an obvious, very straightforward error, and has to be fixed right now. -- Director (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No it's not broken. It's based on the model used in the Iraq War, War on Terror, and Mexican Drug War articles, in which the government is placed in one column, while the insurgents/irregulars are placed in the other with a note denoting that there is also fighting between insurgent groups.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Its broken. None of those infoboxes place combatants who fight each-other into the same column. Combatants who fight each-other cannot be placed into the same column. Its that simple. Unless, I suppose, in extreme situations where there are four or more combatants fighting each-other - which is not the case here. Here we have a very obvious POV distortion. And please don't use section headings to further your position. It gets out of hand pretty fast.. -- Director (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Supreme facepalm of destiny Right... The Sunnis and Shias insurgents in Iraq never fought each other... --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm Ugh.. did I not say that your examples do not apply? Am I being unclear? I'll repeat. In extreme cases, where the infobox cannot provide for an adequate depiction of a four-sided, five-sided, six-sided conflict, we have no choice but to simplify the infobox in that manner. But nowhere on this project will you find a three-sided conflict depicted as anything other than three sided. And even if you do - its an error and misuse of the {{Infobox military conflict}} template. Do you understand? -- Director (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You said "None of those infoboxes place combatants who fight each-other into the same column" which is completely false.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care. -- Director (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you don't care and the fact that you didn't even bother to check those articles carefully suggests you lack WP:competence and should not be suggesting major infobox changes. Your proposal to include Israel failed because of this also.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the irony.[39] Anyhow, it's pretty clear by now that Sopher/Trillionaire/Sayerselle don't care about the facts on the ground, precedents, or sources, only about making their pet rebels seem noble and unified. And I proposed adding Israel, for the record. And the suggestion stands sound. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

@FunkMonk In November 2012 I said on Talk "Syria Ras al-Ayn, Syria - last week it was being bombed by Assad but today the PKK had been fighting with Syrian anti-Assad forces and that the wounded anti-Assad fighters were treated in Turkey but the PKK wounded could not do this and were treated on the Syrian side of the border. It does seem odd therefore to see any PKK flags on the Opposition side at this time as it's a more muddled picture. a third column might be a good idea really" - and 'their pet rebels', what about WP:AGF/CIVIL? bit Manichaean your world imo.Sayerslle (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Lol, because accusing other editors of lacking "competence" (while misspelling the damn word) is civil, right? FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You really should watch your mouth. The number of times you dropped the F-bomb can easily get you blocked.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

So can you show me the "no-fucking" policy? As long as I don't say fuck you, everything should be in order. FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I count a mere two instances on this page aside from the comment directly above. Nevertheless, I think at this point we've beaten the discussion here to a formless, festering pulp. I'm considering hatting this discussion so that we don't spook even the most iron-willed RfC-goers away. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You might want to check his edit summaries in history tab.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

THERE ARE NO PKK IN SYRIA. ONLY PYD. INFORM YOURSELF PLEASE. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

"The P.Y.D. is the most powerful Kurdish faction in Syria and has a well trained militia. This is perhaps a product of its ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or P.K.K., a guerrilla group that has been fighting for Kurdish autonomy in Turkey." the point of the third column what with fighting in Ras-al-Ayn was my point anyhow. you SHOUTING, funkmonk atatcking ones integrity - right toxic. and the New york times article the other day went on :"The leadership of the P.Y.D. plays down its ties to the P.K.K. But Syrian Kurds often use the names interchangeably, and P.Y.D. offices feature portraits of the imprisoned P.K.K. leader Abdullah Ocalan and Syrian P.K.K. guerrillas killed in fighting with Turkey." inform yourself PLEASE. Sayerslle (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Keywords being "ties to". Shall we start referring to Jabhat al-Nusra as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, then? I shout because I'm tired of people who can't be bothered to do any more than surface research on the topic—who can't even accurately identify who we are talking about here—trying to pretend like they have the requisite knowledge to participate constructively. You're not the first one to do this—Sopher kept doing it earlier. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

@Futuretrillionaire, maybe your irrelevant "examples" are illustrative of your own "competence" for discussing infobox templates. The offensive ad hominems, on the other hand make me think on the subject of your competence for discussions in general. It baffles me that you apparently believe attacking the person who pointed out the supposed "precedents" do not apply, will make said examples any more applicable. Imo, I myself must be doing something right here with ten times your edit count [40][41]. -- Director (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• PYD KNC and the KSC need to be a third party to the infobox. It is misleading and incorrect to have them under the banner of the Syrian Opposition when they continue to fight the FSA and their allies in north and north-east regions syria. This needs to be changed and updated. Can we move to consensus and action the change ASAP??? -Zombiecapper (talk 12:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Its not misleading because we have a blatant note describing clashes underneath the Kurds linking to Kurdistan conflict. A third column is underweight, not to mention there is not even a minority of sources that describe the scope of the conflict ot include Kurds. The double line is the answer. Sopher99 (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The "blatant note" is the most ridiculous thing I saw in an infobox. If the Kurds and the Rebels fight each-other they have no place in the same column: lines indicate non-association, i.e. that they are not allies, but conflicting factions are placed in separate columns.

The Kurdistan conflict article in and of itself clearly demonstrates that said fighting is more than notable. Your own personal ideas of "underweight" are irrelevant and concern noone but yourself. The only thing "blatant" here is your POV-pushing. -- Director (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Woah! Woah! Guys, come on, I think were all adults, yes! look its pretty straight forward...PYD is more aligned with Assad than the opposition (unconfirmed), actively fighting FSA (and allies) forces in Aleppo and north western Syria (confirmed). We really should move it to a third column, I think it is misleading and wrong, misleading to the point of a big banner saying SYRIAN NATIONAL COALITION, with their flag at the top of the combant2 box. Refer to the precedents of the Yugoslav Wars info box(s). Not light weight. Looks good. We all could make it look good here to. Why do we not trial and see...whats there to loose???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper (talk • contribs) 10:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep as two columns I´ve been thinking about this for a long time and can see it from both ways so I understand reasoning of both sides, yet I am slightly inclined to this. Why? From military standpoint it is true that Kurds are 3rd side, fighting both rebels and regime, depending on the situation - they are responsive force which so far had armed clashes only because they were attacked by either side. Their initial push into Kurdish cities went mostly without violence and small police force vacated their offices quickly, very possibly thanks to deal stroke between all sides that PYD will stay neutral and will hinder voices from KNC which called for full-scale involvement in war on side of FSA.
However from political point of view they proudly proclaim to be on side of thawra - revolution - KSC is opposed to Assad and calls for his downfall and no Kurdish political or military force calls for separation, as often accused by Arabs. From this side if we have pro-Assad and anti-Assad forces Kurds fall under the anti-Assad column, though I agree that line has to be there to separate them from FSA because of clashes as happened in Ras al-Ayn. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Moreover. KNC (though not PYD) is part of Syrian National Coalition [42]. Politically they are obviously on anti-Assad side. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. One thing: infobox columns present the de facto military situation. Not the de jure political situation. -- Director (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a military infobox designed to show a military situation. The alignment of the KNC or even the KSC isn't relevant, as they haven't shown themselves to play such a significant role in the military conflict. While there are e.g. Yekîtî militias, no other Kurdish force comes near the power or influence of the YPG (and they like to keep it that way)—which is the group in the infobox and the group that is is ultimately being discussed here. Should others come to play a larger role, we can work that out later—the format used in the Yugoslav Wars infobox may be adaptable for this situation. While they may not call for separation to the point of independence, they do demand autonomy—which their "anti-Assad" pals aren't keen on. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

One way to solve this issue would be to to name the two combatants "Government" (bold and break line) and "Opposition"(bold and break line)- or any other titles which maybe relevant (Baathist-aligned and Anti-Baathist Forces). These two headings under this proposal would be absent of any flags/insignia. This would present a break down of two sides, opposition and government. Refer to precedent of Rwandan Civil War info-box. Thoughts????

I like the idea. Sopher99 (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course you do. This idea also fails to address the problem, which is that the PYD Kurds are not part of "the opposition", they are their own force. The idea changes nothing. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think he is talking about opposition in general. Ie non-state parties that don't approve the current government's control. Sopher99 (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Insurgents rather than opposition would be the better term to use. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yay! Insurgents could potentially work, it does meet the definition. As could Anti-Government or Anti-Assad.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper (talk • contribs) 22:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yet again the label is irrelevant. The rows denote allied factions. It doesn't matter if we call the row "people who have occasionally fought the government", because those within it would still not be allies. See also the Mali war article. Both groups of insurgents fight the government, but have a row each, with Futilionaire's hypocritical blessing. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved users

Place your comments here.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• As I mentioned above, this section is not for us regulars to discuss further in vain, but to attract outside voices. We already know the views of each other very well, so let's cut it off until someone objective can give some constructive pointers. Uninvolved users comment under the request, not down here. And do not modify my fucking comments. Thank you. FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Bah, noone's coming.. :) -- Director (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• List in the 3rd column - If the Kurdish Rebels are fighting both the rebels to topple assad and the government forces then they should have their own section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

That they are. -- Director (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

They are not fighting the rebels to topple Assad. Sopher99 (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand the post. -- Director (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry badly worded, I meant the Kurdish Rebels fighting against the Syrian National Coalition and the Syrian Government. Right now it looks to me in the infobox that the Kurdish Rebels are fighting with the Syrian National Coalition, thats just my opinion though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/world/middleeast/syrias-kurds-try-to-balance-security-and-alliances.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& Interview with the leader of the PYD, they are not fighting with the FSA (SNC). Sopher99 (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Correction: he does not regard those units killing Kurds in Ras al-Ayn as "FSA" because it's a meaningless designation. Nevertheless, from other sources we know that the FSA and Nusra are there. Ras al-Ayn holds a strategic position that would allow for greater rebel mobility and shorter, safer supply lines in the east of the country, which the PYD effectively is preventing. If you were to interview rebel fighters in the city, they'd say that the PYD were actually just "regime militia and shabiha" or something like that. Doesn't make it true. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually that interview has a lot of truth in it. Like it or not, media too often brand all rebel groups as FSA though it is far away from truth. Only two confirmed groups we have in Ras al-Ayn are 1, Ghuraba al-Sham 2, Jabhat al-Nusra. Some claim that Farouq sent reinforcements there but so far I´ve seen no confirmation about it from any source, nor Farouq media centre released one footage from the city. Also Farouq uses opposition flag, only flag Arabs in Ras al-Ayn used is black flag of Jihad. No tri-star flag. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think 3rd row should be used if it can be reasonably avoided. People tend to ignore this little factor but 3rd row means that 2 other rows are thinner, making whole thing worse reading experience. This becomes especially apparent with longer infoboxes like we have here (although it has improved recently somewhat, I remember seeing worse here in January). I would say that current solution is sufficient at the moment for showing Kurdish presence. It should be kept in mind that infobox is always going to be simplified, simply because its a fucking box, and not particularly big one either.--Staberinde (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Then why would you say the Kurds should be in the left, rather than the right-hand column? They fight both sides.. -- Director (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    • But they have a common goal against the Syrian government. And they don't fight both sides, the defend against both sides. The PYD don't attack the rebels sides, occasionally the rebels attack the PYD. To make this clear we have two, not one, lines separating them, and a note underneath describing occasional clashes and linking to a main page. Sopher99 (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
      • • Oh really? That's why we're hearing all about those YPG units spearheading assaults on Damascus and nothing about them managing joint control of Qamishli and Hasakah with government forces. Or was it the other way around? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Actually there is no joint control in Qamishlo. Regime has as good as lost that area, bases in Malikiyah area were vacated after YPG attacked army platoon to secure the oil installation and now you can hear pretty clearly and loudly about more than 30 civilians and more than dozen YPG dead in clashes with army and pro-government militias in Aleppo´s Ashrafieh district which is being shelled for second week by Syrian government. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
          • PS: There are no YPG patrols in Hasaka city. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Malikiyah is a bit east of there and more isolated. Govt forces tend to vacate more remote areas to consolidate in major cities. I've seen nothing about govt forces leaving Qamishli.
            • Re Hasakah: This would seem to indicate otherwise. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
      • For me the most important Kurdish role seems to be taking control of significant areas. As far as I am aware it was mostly government, not FSA, that controlled those areas previously, and therefore lost all that ground to Kurds.--Staberinde (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Kurds took over their own regions, and now the rebels are attacking the Kurds there. The Kurds are not aligned with either. It is pretty simple. As for the subjective "reading experience" argument, that is irrelevant, factual accuracy is the goal. The point is to consider the problems we have outlined, not make up new ones. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Kurds are aligned with the FSA, but not the people attacking PYD checkpoints. Both however are rebels trying to overthrow government rule. Both against the government, however PYD and rebels are not against each other, they jusst don't want eachother to intervene in their affairs for the most part. Since its the government's job to intervene in the Kurds affairs, the kurds go on the rebels column. Not to mention there is a double line and a note to clarify things. Sopher99 (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? That must why the YPG loves it when FSA troops in Aleppo try to use Ashrafiyeh and/or Sheikh Maqsud to get at government troops on the other side. The government has taken great care not to "intervene" in Kurdish matters, so that point is utterly irrelevant. What the hell is "it's the government's job" supposed to mean anyway? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Could everyone please stop saying "the Kurds" as if they're some monolithic force. While it's a known fact that the KNC is sympathetic to the SNC/FSA, the KNC is not the group we're discussing, and not the group listed in the infobox. The group we are discussing is the PYD and its military wing, the YPG. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • On just the PYD , Josh Wood, in an International Herald Tribune article notes : "The P.Y.D.’s militant Kurdish nationalism, which puts ethnic identity before allegiance to Syria, and their goal of some form of autonomy has put them at odds with Syria’s rebels. After decades of discriminatory policies against the Kurds under the Baath Party, the P.Y.D. is opposed to anybody but Kurds ruling their areas." Sayerslle (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • And YPG is not only, though it is main, armed Kurdish faction. Yekiti has its own militia, there is TCK militia, all participated in combat in Ras al-Ayn, all not too friendly with PYD (PYD-KNC tensions are nearly identical to those of PUK and KDP) EllsworthSK (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

So what now? Again the obviously-necessary changes have been stalled and stonewalled, and the biased nonsense is still up. This is blatant POV and we simply can not have the encyclopedia sporting it. We should move on and take this further, as was my original conception. Either way Sopher will probably edit-war over this change, and admin enforcement will be needed (Kosovo-style; this article has many parallels). What is necessary is a Kosovo-like "ruling" on the matter, supported by admin action. -- Director (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess so. I'm unfamiliar with the process, are you up for the task? FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Its not exactly rocket science [43]. The question is whether to go to DRN (which is still sort of low-key), or to go straight to mediation or even ARBCOM. -- Director (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is DIREKTORI so obsessed with including a third column? First you wanted Israel now it's the kurds. Next week it will be someone else. Why can't you accept that your opinion is in the extreme minority? This conflict is clearly about the collapse of the Syrian regime so the opposition factions should be grouped together. If these opposition factions are are fighting each other after the regime falls then that will be a seperate conflict in a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.43 (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Syrian civil war
Part of the Arab Spring
Location Syria
Belligerents
Syrian National Coalition Free Syrian Army Syrian Liberation Front Turkey (border clashes) (For other forms of foreign support, see here) Mujahideen al-Nusra Front Ahrar al-Sham Ghuraba al-Sham	Democratic Union Party Popular Protection Units	Syrian government Syrian Armed Forces Shabiha Iran Revolutionary Guards Basij   Hezbollah   PFLP–GC   Iraqi Shi'ite militias (For other forms of foreign support, see here)
Israel (border clashes, air strikes)

@IP. It was my childhood, you see. When I used to play with my Legos my parents only bought me enough to put together two decent columns. From then on I've always been haunted by my obsessive need to see three columns everywhere.
Israel does not belong in a third/fourth column, as it has only engaged one combatant. It is a combatant here, though, and has to be included one way or the other. The columns of this infobox template reflect military conflict, not political alignment.

To clarify, I here submit how the infobox ought to appear in order to:

• #1 depict all combatants who have actually engaged in combat (Israel), without those who have not and are not fighting (Qatar, Saudi Arabia)
• #2 to represent whom these combatants are actually fighting.
• and #3 without all the nonsense clutter (such as every single agency and military organization of the Syrian government).

The rebels should also be to the left: rebels are the attacking party in a civil war, and attacking factions are usually placed to the left. -- Director (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

look at the Spanish Civil War article for example- oh, the spanish generals rebelled and they are to the right. Sayerslle (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Its not a rule by any means, no doubt one can find many exceptions, but in general the attacker is logically placed as combatant 1. Although I'm sure that particular issue is the very least of anyone's concerns here. -- Director (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I can't imagine why this infobox isn't used here. I can't conceive of a rational argument for its exclusion. The abhorrent pile of POV clutter that's up there now is just absurd. -- Director (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

We keep telling you. It would be undue weight and there is no source defining the scope of the civil war as a three-way battle. Furthermore the PYD leader himself has described the PYD as being friendly with the FSA but opposing any interference. Sopher99 (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I gave you a 4,000 character essay on why "undue weight" is a bullshit argument, which you hardly did not responded to. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

These two infoboxes both solve the problem. It states clearing that there are two groups in this civil war. The government and those opposing the government. We can have the goverment ofrces listed as just Syrian government or listed along as Pro-Assad forces. We can have the other column listed as Insurgents or Opposition fighters. I see no excuses. Sopher99 (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• By "we" you mean "you"? "Undue weight"? By who's estimate? Yours? Pardon me while I laugh out loud. That's a handy little "mechanism" you've got by which any change whatsoever, no matter how obviously justified, can be stonewalled forever. Noone here is peddling the "undue weight" stuff but you. Do you seriously expect people to go "oh you say its undue weight, ok then.."?
• If you're going with the "no source defines the conflict" nonsense - then kindly delete the entire infobox forthwith. I'll be waiting. Otherwise can it, please.
• And finally, the PYD can claim whatever they like. Anything at all. They can claim they are secret agents from Jupiter. The only thing that matters here is the (profusely-sourced) fact that they are fighting the rebels.

And no, we will not have two ridiculous infoboxes just for the sake of your pro-SNC POV. Not a single war article on this project, including those far more complex, has two infoboxes. -- Director (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Blatant Undue weight. Thats like me making the world war 2 infobox all about the cold war, and then asking me "by whose estimate is it undue weight lol". Many many many many sources define the conflict as between the government as its allies and the opposition and its allies. I did not suggerst we have two infoboxes. I merely showed two possible infoboxes that Zombiecapper suggested. Sopher99 (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Two infoboxes?!? God, the amount of tap-dancing and squirming to get around the issue here is astounding! FunkMonk (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. I gave you two possible options of infoboxes. Sopher99 (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue of this absurd RfC is placing the Kurdish faction into the third column. You need not bother anyone with nonsense infobox proposals that leave the matter as it is. The infobox up there is the three-column proposal. Kindly do not delete it nor attempt to obscure it with fifty-five other infoboxes that are irrelevant to this thread. -- Director (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"By whose opinion". I was giving solutions as to why the "status quo" is better in this case. Particularly ones suggested in the involved users comments. Sopher99 (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"Solutions" is not the word. Its a "solution" for you I'm sure, but unless you are prepared to recognize the necessity of a three-sided infobox for the neutral illustration of a three-sided conflict, this matter will be up on ARBCOM before its done. -- Director (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to add that it is astonishing that there is not three columns. Just typing fsa clashes with kurds gets a whole lot of hits. Let's get over the NPOV b.s. and add a third column. --70.71.17.180 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Let us copy the German and French example with regards to where we designate the Kurds. I for one support a third Kurdish row. --70.71.17.180 (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, as you can see below, there is currently a WP:DRN thread about this [44]. Uninvolved input would be appreciated. -- Director (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

* Uninvolved User Comment - Two columns. When the dust settles, then maybe more - it is always very difficult (and emotional/partisan) to Wiki a Civil War in progress. One could make literally thousands of columns for all the nations with their hand in the civil war. ~~

Nope.. one most certainly couldn't introduce any more than three columns. You misunderstand how they're introduced: only factions fighting each-other are separated by perpendicular lines. As for "thousands", well, that's some hyperbole :) -- Director (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I just say that this dispute has gone on way too long? The constant reverts and counter-reverts are making it hard to actually edit the page to add new info or fix errors. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

* Uninvolved User Comment - Two columns. It is quite obvious that in a conflict between two parties you list the two parties, hence two columns. There are huge issues of bias in relation to this article. The death toll in reported as being from the UN, in reality it is a CNN quote of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and there is no context. It is not only inaccurate but misleading. Isthisuseful (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thread on WP:DRN

This is to notify there is currently a thread on the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard on this issue. -- Director (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

New development

Apparently some agreement has been concluded between rebels and YPG fighters in Ras al-Ayn, which seems to have ended the fighting with an added point of increasing collaboration against government forces [45]. It remains to be seen how this will be borne out (and if it will hold up), but I think this may change the tone for debates on this topic. The time-nuanced Yugoslav Wars infobox may be the best model for this case, as it is clear that this agreement has the aim of producing the first real alignment between the parties in question, and that no such alignment existed prior. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering the fact that the rebels are run by Erdogan's Turkey, such a truce won't last long. But let's wait and see, the infobox isn't going anywhere. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that too little time has passed for this alliance to warrant a separate "temporal shelf" in the infobox. At present a simple three-sided box would still be accurate. If the truce holds after the customary two weeks, we can easily merge the two as a single column in a shelf below (à la my edits to the Yugoslav Wars or Yugoslav Front infoboxes.) Some kind of joint military action might help as well, in which case they would not need to be separated by a horizontal line. -- Director (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we should just wait until the truce inevitably breaks down. Then it will be plain as day that these groups will never join forces, and the third row proposal will stand even stronger than now. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no question with regard to the third row. We're certainly not going to "ret-con" history. The only question is whether or not the two sides might be added in the second shelf as allies/combatants not in combat with one-another (after fighting each-other). -- Director (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

FSA "leader" Salim Idris has rejected the peace treaty [46], so this may well turn out to be DOA. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"When trying to understand why Idris rejected the accord only three days after it was signed, one has to bear in mind the influence of Turkey’s current policy on the FSA." No shit, Sherlock! And even if some "brigades" stop fighting the PYD, if others continue they still don't belonging the same column. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

However the peace treaty was signed by the FSA military council of Hasakah. Meaning all FSA Hasakah brigades are going to cooperate with PYD. This just enhances the argument that the FSA leans toward being a "trade-mark", and arguing whether or not the FSA and PYD fight with eachother is meaningless (ie you can't say they are not friends, neutrals, or enemies. Keep as two columns because its just comes down to the fact that the FSA, Mujihideen, and PYD all have the same goal of wrestling the government for control of areas. Sopher99 (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It means so such thing. You go from saying that all FSA brigades will abide by it because some "commander" scribbled his name on the document to saying that FSA is a useless umbrella designation.

The PYD has done very little "wrestling". The general pattern has been: YPG units walk into a town, ask whatever security forces are present to leave, whereupon the security forces pack their bags and scoot in a hurry. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You misquote me. All FSA hasakah brigades will cooperate with the YPG.

The YPG has no Local Coordination Committees or SOHR. Individual fighters don't report how many soldiers they killed. When the FSA took control of Quneitra province, despite not reporting how many soldiers they killed, I am pretty sure they didn't ask the soldiers there to pack their bags. Reporting organizations and communication matters. Sopher99 (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

100% false. There are certainly Kurdish media organisations that report on happenings in Hasakah and other Syrian Kurdish regions. There's Rudaw (generally critical of the PYD; realtime site is down for maintenance for now), Firat News (pro-PYD), and the rights organisation KurdWatch. Most claims of deaths coming out of Ras al-Ayn come from the PYD/YPG's claims—it's the Islamists who don't like reporting their losses. SOHR itself reports on Kurdish happenings—that's where the information regarding the bloodless expulsion of government troops from Darbasiyah, Tall Tamr, and Amuda came from [47]. Please at least pretend to do some research before spouting off. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

So why are there two separate rows for rebels in the Mali conflict article? Both factions surely want to "wrestle control for areas" from the government? FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The criteria of one article is not a mandate for another. I don't know much about that article, and if you notice, I did not edit that article even once. From the scatter of news I have come across, the Taurags and the Islamists are both wrestling control for governance. (Not to mention the Taurags and Islamists have just about equal weight and participation in the conflict). Sopher99 (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, they don't want to "wrestle areas out of control" for the same reasons, or for the same purpose, so your argument is highly misleading. And Futuretrillionaire amusingly supported the third row in theMali article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I never said for the same reason or purpose. But hey Iran and Syria are both fighting rebels for different reasons. One to "defend the axis of resistance" the other to defend their mafia cartel. Why don't you challenge the third row on that article's talkpage? I have nothing to do with those three rows. Sopher99 (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Why I don't challenge it? Perhaps because I agree with it? And lol at your POV characterisations. So the "rebels" are not zealous Salafists who want to establish a caliphate and exterminate all infidels? Both sides are "Nazis" in their own right, your extreme POV-pushing is baffling and ridiculous. I don't get this western cheer-leading for people who would behead them if they got the chance. There are unaligned, peaceful seculars who need the same zealous support, for your information. They get no love anywhere. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

There are only 10,000 al nusra people if you believe al nusra's claims of strength. Only a fraction are radical in practice, most of them are there for the weapons and decisive leadership. Their spiritual leader Abu Golani probably isn't even in Syria. Sopher99 (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As for the baathists, they get no love because they even hate eachother. There have been only 2 baathist states in recent history, iraq and syria, and both were at eachothers throats. Your "peaceful" Baath leader Saddam straight up murdered 400,000 ethnic Iranians Shiites over the course of ten years. And your "peaceful" leader Assad just threw a dozen scuds at Aleppo today. Hafez ordered the assassination of the Baath co-founder Bitar. Right on the spot the own creator of the nazi cult is murdered by his fellow nazis. Sopher99 (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's some extreme tunnel vision right there. Did you notice I said unaligned seculars? Does that mean Baathists? As for Nusra, eh, even the "mainstream" FSA is overwhelmingly Islamist, regardless of what US and Gulf media wants you to believe. These are the same kind of people who are currently killing Liberals in Egypt and Tunisia. FunkMonk (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As for "people who will slice our head off" - I don't see that happened in Saudi Arabia, when the scimitar of "struggle against the infidels" is even on their flag. I don't see it happening under Morsi's Islamic government, or Tunisia. I don't see that happening to our diplomats in Iran, and Iran really hates us. Wake up, its not the 1800s anymore. Well it is in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Sopher99 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You have this image in your head that Americans are afraid of islamists because they are not secular. They are not afraid of Islamists because of their religion. They are afraid of Islamists because they are arab. Yes, its racism, not politics, that drives "anti-islam" sentiment in America. Yes, all Lebanese, even Christians and Alawites, are allu akbar islamists in the average American's eyes. Sopher99 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you even follow the news? Leftists are being killed off in Tunisia and Egypt. Copts and blacks have been massacred in Egypt and Libya. And even then, the governments there show restraint, because they want to receive foreign aid. Once the West is unable to provide this due to whatever economic problems, the Muslim Brotherhood types will turn their backs on them in a second, and release their Salafite dogs. As for Saudi and Bahrain, people are being killed there weekly, but the protesters don't receive weapons or western support to defend themselves, so of course there aren't as many dead as in Syria, where many protesters were armed since at least March 2011. FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Leftists are not being killed off Tunisia or Egypt, neither or Copts. Blacks near Sabha and Kufra were fighting with arabs last year. "Secular" Yemen has been bombing and killing Houthis for decades. "secular" Morraco has been oppressing the Western Sahara for decades. No protesters were armed in 2011. People are not allowed to have guns in Syria. If they did get guns, it was to rightfully defend themselves. Besides, I strictly remember Egyptians burning down and rpging the police stations, but the number of peacefuls still outnumbers the violent types 1000 to 1. Eritrea is a secular country in the region, and it has the most oppression (other than North Korea) and refugees per populace in the world. Sopher99 (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Tunisia.[48] Egypt.[49]Libya[50] Nuff said. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyway this is Soapboxing. If you would like I can remove our comments since "why are there two seperate" and put it on my/your talkpage Sopher99 (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that this article (as so many since 2011) is kidnapped by pro-"rebels" who personally decide what information should be included and what not, what sources are reliable and what not, etc... And then you still wondering why WP is less and less reliable and most biased every day?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: A convoy of U.N. peacekeepers been have seized near the Golan Heights by Syrian rebels - who say that they will hold them until al-Assad's forces withdraw from a rebel-held village. The rebel action came on the day that Britain said it would increase aid to the "opposition forces". Reuters, Wed Mar 6, 2013 81.141.87.238 (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL BRIEFING

14 March 2013

Syria: Summary killings and other abuses by armed Opposition groups

“My daughter shouted to me, ‘mum, come quick and see dad.’ He was on TV... as he was shown being killed, I pushed my daughter away to block her from seeing... but she did see.” Widow of Major Fou’ad Abd al-Rahman, as identified by his family, whose beheading with another man was aired on television and the Internet. 89.240.208.125 (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 March 2013

This article states the the Democratic Union Party (Kurds) are on the same side as the Syrian Opposition which is not true. They are a third party in the conflict and should be stated as a separate belligerent. They are not allied with the Syrian Government or the Syrian Opposition. 220.239.231.24 (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This is already being discussed, and yes, some fractions of the YPD are allied with the FSA. [51] and by your logic we would have to make a fourth column, because a splinter group of the YPD called the Azadi militia, is now basically at war with the YPD [52]. Anyway as I said its being discussed above. Sopher99 (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol, Sopher again revealing how little he knows about Kurds in Syria. The YPG is the armed wing of the PYD. Azadi is an entirely separate political party. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the same old sources that amount to NOTHING. The Kurds are either alone, with the rebels, or with the government. You cannot say that they belong to one side or another, as doing so is just ignorant.

This article http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/24/third-point-in-the-revolution-syrian-kurds-carve-out-an-enclave-between-the-assad-regime-and-the-free-syrian-army/ here outlines why the kurds must have their own column and it also shows who supports them.

If 1000 kurdish fighters are fighting alongside the rebels this does not automatically make the kurds part of the rebels. Jumada (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with that - the channel 4 week of films 'syrias descent' included a report on the situation in the north and had a film about FSA/Kurd interactions - including a prisoner handover - the Kurds treated their prisoners well, they seem pretty admirable really - anyhow, it shows they are separate - the FSA for example chanting 'prophet Mohammed is our leader forever' , a play on the regime mantra 'Bashar is our leader' - or king or whatever they chant, and the Kurds say 'Ocalan is our leader' as they go between the different sectors of control - the film ' syrias kurds fighting a war within a war' - [53] Sayerslle (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The Free Syrian Army is also seperate from the Al Nusra front. Doesn't mean we put a third column for al nusra. Just yesterday the Kurds teamed up with the FSA inb Aleppo to capture Sheikh Mahsoud from intruding Syrian army officers. [54]. As I said the YPD is now fighting a splinter group form within itself. [55], and Ras al Ain is now jointed controlled with joint-checkpoints between the FSA and the YPD. [56]. So none of this tells me There is need ofr a third column. Sopher99 (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

WRT Sheikh Maqsud, the PYD is accusing the FSA of arbitratily arresting Kurdish civilians [57], so relations between the groups are hardly fraternal. You can bring up the joint checkpoints in Ras al-Ayn all you want, but the fact remains that they were only established after months of fighting and one failed peace agreement. And if we're to take such checkpoints as evidence of alignment or what have you, what then does the fact that the YPG and the army have been operating similar checkpoints in Qamishli mean [58]?

And no, Azadi is not a splinter group of the PYD, it's an entirely separate party which has long been in opposition to the PYD. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sopher is right there. As I pointed out about twenty times by now, columns are used to indicate military conflict. Completely unaligned factions such as the FSA and Al Nusra, or even Israel, as I said, can be listed in the same column - provided they are separated by a dividing line. Though I'm not so sure Al Nusra and the rest of the "FSA" are so "unaligned" - if they have a joint supreme command (as was shown).

There never was any question that the DUP and the opposition factions are not allies. However, unless I am very much mistaken, the Kurds and the opposition factions have, in fact, engaged in combat. That would warrant a separate column. There are sources that indicate the kurds are the third side in this conflict [59]. -- Director (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

"if they have a joint supreme command (as was shown)"—You need to carefully re-read O'Bagy's piece, bud. She makes it quite clear that the SMC is trying to marginalise JN's influence by courting less-psychotic radicals:

Page 7: "To this end, the SMC has recognized the importance of the inclusion of some of the more radical forces, while still drawing a red line at the inclusion of forces that seek the destruction of a Syrian state, such as jihadist groups like Jabhat Nusra."

In fact, she makes it quite clear that only the SLF has integrated fully into the SMC:

Page 38: "For example, the Syrian Liberation Front’s (SLF) leadership has been incorporated into the SMC and many SLF commanders serve as SMC members. This has empowered the SMC, and allowed the command to draw legitimacy from their inclusion."

Page 38: "The Syrian Islamist Front (SIF) has been incorporated to a lesser degree. Few of its leaders are actively involved with the SMC, and SIF ranks have not been integrated into the new command."

You seem to have misinterpreted the figure of opposition groups sensu lato on page 39 as being a list of all the groups in the SMC. But it's important to actually read a text and not just look at the nice, colourful pictures. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Sopher. No need for a third column for the Kurds. They are most prominently against the government so they are listed in the opposition column, but with a separation line since they are not fully aligned with other opposition forces. As for their occasional conflict with other opposition groups like the FSA and Nusra, it was agreed in discussion with other editors before that we provide a link in the infobox which leads to a whole section on their conflict with other rebel groups, instead of creating a third column. Read the previous discussions on this issue. EkoGraf (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Any MC Infobox
Part of Any Article on This Project
Location Anyplace
Belligerents
combatants that fought combatants in Column 2 (not necessarily allies)	combatants that fought combatants in Column 1 (not necessarily allies)

As far as third columns are concerned - the issue is not alignment, so we should probably stop talking about that altogether. They would belong in the same column regardless of whether they were allies or entirely unaffiliated. What matters is armed conflict between the rebel factions and the Kurdish faction. Has there been significant conflict there? Remember also, please, that this isn't a news site and that past conflicts also factor in, not just the current state of affairs. -- Director (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it me, or is that Bashar al-Assad? -- Director (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, Vladmir Putin kind of looks like unmasked darth vader, and the emperor might as well be Khamenei. Sopher99 (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Joke all you want, its a dictatorial colleague of mine (the resemblance is uncanny :)). And the reference is so wonderfully ambiguous too.. on the one hand one equates the rebels with the good guys, on the other the bad guys kinda capture the good guys in that scene (and call 'em "scum").

Anyway, just wanted to focus the discussion here on conflict, rather than alignment. -- Director (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Have a separate column for the Kurds

The Kurds are not supporting the rebels nor government, so you should move them to a third column. During the Battle of Aleppo and Ras al-Ayn the Kurds both fought against both government forces and the terrorists groups of the FSA and Jabhat al-Nusra. The Kurds never declared which side they were on, even though they were said by the FSA to be fighting against Assad's forces.EthanKP (talk · contribs) 8 April 2013 5:49 (UTC)

The conflict is not defined as a threeway battle, and recently the YPD and the FSA has been maintaining joint-checkpoints. [60]

The Kurds deliberately helped the FSA capture Sheikh Mahsoud [61]

Also the FSA are not terrorist groups. Jabhat al Nusra is listed as a terrorist group, but so are the Shabiha. Sopher99 (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Really, I doubt that they have daily sucide bombings on civilian populations that are controlled by the government. The FSA is made up of mercenaries sent from the U.S and beyond who want to destroy a perfertly good government and replace it with a puppet of the West, like what happened to Libya. The FSA also participates in massacres and rapes of civilians who they claim work for Assad. I can say a lot more about that, but with the Kurds they are made up of many militias with some loyal to Assad and others who support the terriosts, therefore they should just be listed separately in a third column. I also feel the same for Mujahideen terriosts, cause they have also participated in skirmishes with the Kurds and FSA. There is really no "rebel" side to this civil war since everyone is aganist each other. EthanKP (talk · contribs) 8 April 2013, 23:28

Your crazy if you believe all that. The Free Syrian army was founded by colonel Harmoush, later headed by colonel Riad Assad and Brigadier Mustafa al Sheikh, and currently headed by Brigadier Salim Idress, the defected head of the Aleppo military engineering acadamy. The FSA was established by 100 defected soldiers in July 2011, and grew to over 10,000 defectors by December 2011. The FSA is now composed of around 50,000 defectors (not including another 30,000-40,000 defected soldiers who simply went home) Only a few thousand in Syria are foreign born. The Opposition has the same number of foreign troops as the government does. In case you didn't know, assad has 3000-5000 hezbollah terrorists working for him in Syria (not to mention the iranian quds force, or the Mahdi army from Iraq). As for Libya, where are the "millions" that Gaddafi promised would rise up to defend tripoli? Why is it that the Libyan people are entirely okay with the new goverment, and had a 54% voter turnout (1% below that of the egyptian parliament elections). Sopher99 (talk) 22:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Lol, yes, everyone who doesn't believe Sopher's Twitter propaganda is "crazy". Get over yourself, man. Your pet-jihadis are as bad as the government, if not worse. At least have enough sense to refrain from glorifying them unconditionally. There are no good guys in this conflict, as in any civil war. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not glorifying the Jihadis, first of all. I am defending the FSA. And if I had a choice between being ruled by the regime vs al nusra, I would easily chose al nusra. And yes there are good guys in civil wars. In the American civil war the union were the good guys. Regardless of how much good independence would have done for the south, the freedom of African Americans mattered most (Not that the union officially fought in the war because of slavery) Sopher99 (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I would prefer to live under neither, but well, we can't all be true believers, like Sopher here. Tell me again, what hurts more for a civilian, being bombed by air plane, or being bombed by suicide? Or beheading, for that matter? Can you mention a single crime committed by the regime that has not been repeated by the insurgents? Yes, it is probably best for Islamists to live under the rule of Islamists, but seriously, do you think it is good for anyone else? And no, "Assad is worse" is not a valid argument, since it does not address my question. Anyhow, we now (yet again?) have confirmation that Sopher is an uncompromising POV-pusher, which should be taken into account in future discussions. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

60,000 killed by army artillery shelling, cluster bombs, scuds, tank shelling, snipers, prison torture ect hurts alot more than the 0 reported beheadings of civilians. Crimes al nusra didn't commit but Assad forces did? I dunno how about clear genocide, burning down houses, mass prison torture of civilians, mass arrest, thermobaric bombing of homes, landmines, sniping refugees, use of chemicals agents on civilian neighborhoods, the knifing and slaughtering of children, ect. Anyway, as you can see by the warning below, its not a forum. I suggest you remove our discussion to the my talkpage, or yours. Sopher99 (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Sopher99 (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And how many times does it have to be pointed out that the casualty figure applies to people killed by both sides? How far will you take the ridiculous propaganda? FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The casualty figures currently are about 80,000, with 20,000 combatants included in that toll. Figure out the rest yourself. Sopher99 (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And I repeat: The insurgents kill non-combatants too. Don't be silly. FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM

Sopher, you don't know what you are saying. The FSA is a terriosts group proudly funded by the West, with the goal of creating another shit democracy puppet state. The FSA and their accomplices are responsible for the torture, murder, and rape of civilians across Syria. They blame Assads army for using missiles aganist residential neighborhood, with the bull shit execuse of personally targeting civilians. First of all, terriosts take refuge in peoples home to rob and kill civilians then a missile lands there killing them, with people saying it was deliberately the Army to kill women and children.?? You watch too much typical Western anti-muslim government news like Fox, NBC or SNN. For Foreign born fighters, the FSA and it's puppets proudly have the most with killers coming from all around the globe including hundreds of mercenaries from the U.S. More recently an American mercenary was caught by authorities and shipped back to the U.S where the government says he chose to fight and he's a retired soldier but really he is a spy sent by the president to help destroy a non-Zionist government. Hezbollah fighters dont have a big part in the civil war they just join for pleasure to stand up aganist the War on Terror and the Western paid FSA army. In Libya millions of people are still loyal to the courageous leader of Islam Muamar Quadafi who stood up aganist NATO and other evil West organizations. Sadly, when people are traveling on there cruises through Italy they don't want to hear missiles and gunfire from Libya, so the West does what they do best destroy a perfectly good Arab country. I don't think you can back up your stupid answers can argue with what I have to say. EthanKP (talk · contribs) April 8 2013, 2:00 (UTC) You are the one who doesn't know what your are saying. The Syrian government has tortured tens of thousands, has an estimated 200,000 people in their prisons (most of them just random civilians). The regime fired on peace protesters for nine months without any resistance. The FSA did not exist until July 2011, and did not hold any territory until January 2012. The regime has launched cluster bombs, scuds, thermobaric bombs, artillery shelling and anti-aircraft weaponry on its own people. They destroyed their third biggest city homs. 60,000 civilians have been killed by this regime. They have use tanks, aircraft, snipers, mercenary thugs (shabiha). They committed countless massacre including in Houla, Tremseh, Qubair, Hasiweah, Bustan al qusr, Zamalka, Moadamiya, Douma, Khan sheikhan, Souran, the list goes on. Assad is pro-israel whether you like it or not. He didn't recognize Palestine until 2011, didn't shoot down Israel's warplane in 2006 when it spent 6 hours bombing Deir Ezzor nuclear research facility, yet shot down Turkey's plane over the Mediterranean. Again when Israel launched a strike against a hezbollah weapons convoy in Jan 2013 assad did nothing. Assad never even attempted to take back the Golan, never gave any Humanitarian aid to Palestinians (yet Qatar gave 400 million worth of aid and investment to Gaza in 2012). Over 800 Palestinians have died so far in the Syrian army's shelling of the Yarmouk camp. All assad did in the war of resistance was give Israel assured stability and kill Palestinians in the Yarmouk camp. The Palestinian authority voted to condemn and remove assad from the arab league in 2011. Hamas has repeatedly praised the opposition, and right now is even training Free Syrian army fighters. Palestinians overwhelmingly support the opposition (85%) [62]. No one is loyal to Gaddafi. Gaddafi promised "millions" would rise up to defend tripoli. No one came. Tripoli was the shortest battle of the war. Hundreds of thousands in Tripoli celebrated the NTC's victory. Everything went back to normal in Libya the second the NTC took over. Free elections were held and power was transferred to the democratically elected parliament, who voted Magraf as the new prime minister. Sopher99 (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sopher on this [[63]] search up videos of beheadings Syria, so you can personally see it for yourself instead of giving that *** response of 0 deaths. And you'll see terrorists commit it, and the Jewish media doesn't put a word out about it so people think the rebels are the good guysEthanKP (talk · contribs)

• What has actually happened with the Kurds recently? Doesn't seem like there's much fighting at present. FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Third row for Kurdish militants (again)

Apart from the Israel issue, the most urgent one is removing the Kurds from the FSA side. Latest news: "KURDISH militants are battling rebels in northern Syria near the border with Turkey a day after deadly clashes killed 11 insurgents." http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/killed-as-syria-rebels-kurds-clash/story-e6freoo6-1226651019659 FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't say the FSA is fighting them. It says al nusra is.

Furthermore, there are no sources describing the conflict as a three way battle.

If Israel was added it would be easily put on the rebels side, despite the fact the mujaheddin are arch enemies with Israel. The civil war is defined as a battle between the government and insurgents.

Lastly The Al nusra front went on full scale battle against Ghurab al Sham, another islamist group. By your logic we would have to create a whole separate column for Ghurab al Sham. But we don't, because no source defines the conflict as a three way battle between Syrian army, insurgents, and Ghurab al Sham. [64] Sopher99 (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Nope, FSA-aligned—and SMC member (23)—Tawhid Brigade (one of the largest in Aleppo) is there on the frontlines attacking Kurds as well [65]. They top the list of participating brigades on the official declaration of war against the PYD [66]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The sources don't say it is a three way battle? Who cares? The sources say the Kurds ar enotaligned with the rebels, and that's what counts. "Since the beginning of Syria's uprising more than two years ago, the Kurds, who make up about 15 per cent of the country's population, have tried to stay out of the fighting, stopping both rebel and regime forces from entering their areas." And no, separation doesn't apply to other Sunni rebel groups, despite infighting, because these have mostly worked closely together with the others. The Kurds never did. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Besides, the so-called FSA arent even a big player in the whole story. The bulk of the oposition, the SAA is fighting against, are foreign backed mercenaries and terrorist groups. Also, good to know that the information on the real Kurdish stance is finally getting out. Was getting tired of the Kurds vs SAA propaganda.Ratipok (talk) 15:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Completely untrue. The foreign backed mercenaries in Syria are the Shabiha and Hezbollah, which has long been proven. Daily the PYD is fighting Syrian army in Aleppo. The civil war page is about the civil war not side conflicts. Sopher99 (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the YPG is fighting the army in Aleppo. Really don't see why that changes anything. Clashes between rebels and the YPG have by now taken place in every Kurd-held area—in Afrin, in 'Ayn al-Arab, in Aleppo city, in Hasakah Province.

And no, Ratipok, the PYD is not fighting for the government. That is also a POV distortion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The Iranians and Hezbollah are just two of the many foreign-backed mercenaries in Syria at the moment Sopher. You forgetting about non-Syrian Sunnis fighting on the rebels side? At least 700 of them have been confirmed as being killed in action in Syria by their respective countries and SOHR. Just go look at the info on the Syrian civil war casualties page. I am wondering why the western community wasn't reacting much when those foreigners were flowing into Syria in the last two years, but Hezbollah has been there for only 2-5 months and already it's an "invasion by foreign mercenaries". Guess its double standards as always. :P In any case, I agree there is, for now, still no need to add a third row for the Kurds. EkoGraf (talk) 15:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Everyone recognized there were foreign fighters among the rebels since early 2012. But they are volunteers, no real organization. Hezbollah is an entire foreign entity. And its I - not the west- thats calling it an invasion by foreign mercenaries - in response to the other user's suggestion that the FSA is outdone on its side by foreigners. Sopher99 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

wOW is the title of this section "who is foreign in syria"??? I thought it was "third row for Kurdish militants (again)"!!! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually Sopher you are not the first to describe it as an invasion by foreign mercenaries. An FSA officer used the same sentence word for word three days ago. And volunteers? Come on, lets be real here. When they were hurrying to fight as "volunteers" in Iraq and Afghanistan against the Americans they were then called foreign mercenaries and terrorists. Now they are freedom fighters? I would direct you to read this article [67] by the Guardian very carefully. It seems those volunteers, mainly from the al-Nusra front, have brokered deals in the east with the Army to transfer oil to their ports on the coast for a profit. Quote In some areas, al-Nusra has struck deals with government forces to allow the transfer of crude across the front lines to the Mediterranean coast. So my friend, they are not there to help the Sunni Syrians, they are there to make a profit, get more weapons, and when Assad is gone they will turn their guns on the FSA just like they have already attacked the Kurds. So I wouldn't praise them much. But in any case, like Lothar said, back to the main topic, I'm against a third row for the Kurds. EkoGraf (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hush, now.

The main problem with the whole article is that at one point someone decided which media's are reliable and which are not. Thereof, usually the pro-rebel media are decided to be the reliable ones. Even though the majority of their on-field informations are provided by a guy that operates in a small bedroom, located in the UK. Facebook info basiclly Ratipok (talk) 17:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC) I'm not aware of any "pro-rebel" sources being used in the article. Just because a source cites SOHR doesn't mean it's pro-rebel.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Why is Sopher allowed to single-handedly obstruct this article from becoming less POV? He has announced his Internet-allegiance to the FSA on numerous occasions, so he is obviously never going to agree with anything that could be interpreted as bad PR. FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, POV editors appear to be a big problem with this talk page. When faced with WP:SPA's attempting to introduce systematic bias, I'd advise someone with clean hands to collects diffs and eventually take it to WP:AN/I. Of course, this isn't a discussion topic for this talk page. TippyGoomba (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

PKK in infobox?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/20/us-syria-crisis-kurds-idUSBRE95J0TH20130620

more and more proof of PKK involvement (specially after ceasefire with Turkey) --Reader1987 (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Or rather proof that journalists can't be bothered to distinguish between the PYD and the PKK. PKK properly refers to the Turkey-based organisation, while the PYD is its ideological offshoot in Syria. "PKK" is sometimes used interchangeably with "PYD" in Syria, particularly amongst opponents of the PYD, but that doesn't mean Karayılan is shipping his guerillas into Syria. Given how Efrin is several hundred kilometres away from the PKK's strongholds in Qandil and totally isolated even from other PYD-held enclaves, their presence (as opposed to PYD/YPG) seems highly unlikely. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

In other words, it's already in the infobox under a different name and that name is more appropriate than "PKK". Did I understand correctly? TippyGoomba (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Correct. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Kurds in the Infobox

I have separated the Kurdish Democratic Union Party forces from the Syrian Opposition column. According to the latest AP feature story: [68]

"Taking advantage of the chaos of the civil war, Syria's Kurdish minority has carved out a once unthinkable degree of independence in their areas, creating their own police forces, even their own license plates, and exuberantly going public with their language and culture.

But by pursuing their own path distinct from both the opposition and the regime, they are also colliding with Sunni rebels, who have increasingly clashed with Kurdish militiamen. Rebels have besieged a pocket of Kurdish towns and villages in the mainly Sunni Arab corner of northwest Syria for weeks, leading to reports of shortages of food and medicine."

http://news.yahoo.com/kurds-fight-place-syrian-civil-war-194103139.html

After a brief look in the archives, it appears that a good majority of editors supported making the third column for the Kurds, well before the latest Kurd vs. Rebel clashes. --Tocino 07:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus to do this. The Mujihideen pursues their own distinct path from the opposition. They have their own courts, their own police force, their own laws, and their own culture. So unless we make a Fourth column, kurds stay in second. Sopher99 (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

This Civil war is not defined by reliables sources as a three way battle. It is defined as the Syrian government versus its opponents.

I should also mention that Al nusra went on full war with Ghurub al Sham, destroying that organization. Doesn't mean we put Ghurub al Sham as a third column. Sopher99 (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that instead of putting a third column, we put a note on the top of the page, saying "for Kurdistan conflict in Syria, see here" and give a link to the Kurdistan conflict page. Sopher99 (talk) 08:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• So let's have a vote. FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Support third column for Kurds. It was about time, and we've discussed this at length in the past. And please, Sopher, you don't get to "define" this war, so cut out the bullshit. Your arguments are invalid. The Kurds are listed as a separate force with no allies by all mainstream media, and fight the "rebels" more than the government. Regardless of some Islamist infighting, they usually cooperate, so it doesn't apply for them. And no, the Kurds don't want Assad to fall, they just want autonomy in their regions, they couldn't care less whether Assad rules the rest of Syria or not. Therefore, they have no common goal with the Islamist rebels:/FSA FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Unambiguous support. Now that the Tawhid Brigade (prominent SILF members of SMC) has decided that it'd be an intelligent and productive move to launch an attack on the PYD-held enclave of Kurd Dagh just as the army sets its sights on Aleppo, the one-column presentation of Kurds and rebels looks even more stupid than it did before. At least 80 rebels and 11 YPG militia have died in the clashes—which are yet ongoing. Rebels have embargoed the entire region, leaving hundreds of thousands of civilians (including many refugees from elsewhere in Syria) cut off from food and medicine. Same side, my ass. Lazy journalistic glosses of the conflict should be treated less seriously than sources which actually address the Kurdish role in this conflict. Not a single debate has reached any conclusion on the matter, largely due to the filibustering of a handful of editors, one of whom essentially self-identifies as a pro-opposition activist, so don't try to shut this down with a misapplied WP:STICK. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support. In part per Lothar, but mainly because The Economist has started portraying the Kurds as a separate faction, as seen in the map and penultimate paragraph of this article from the latest issue. —Quintucket (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact, pretty much all such maps show the Kurds as separate from the opposition. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't mean they belong in a different column. No source describes this as a three way war. Sopher99 (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Joshua Landis, one of the most prominent scholars on Syria in the world, says the following when discussing plans for a peace agreement: The Three state solution: Divide the country into three, following the ethnic lines of the major combatant groups ... This would mean creating an Alawite, Sunni Arab, and Kurdish state. All you can provide are reductionistic simplifications used by lazy journalists. Next. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Heres a proposal for a solution. We put in bold on the top of the left column: Government and its allies , and on the right column Opposition groups or just plain Opposition.

We further put a note in the infobox itself that not all opposition groups are allies of each other. ie Kurds, Ghurub al Sham, Al nusra. ect Sopher99 (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hah. Riddle me this: what preponderance of sources are defining the PYD as part and parcel of the "opposition"? Where does that leave parties like Azadi and Yekiti—an opposition within an opposition? JN and GhSh are closer to each other and the rest of the Arab rebels than to the PYD. We're talking a few sporadic scuffles versus battles leaving hundreds dead. In fact, in making this proposal, you've totally ignored the AP piece at the top of this section which says that Kurds are "pursuing their own path distinct from both the opposition and the regime". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• So at this point, it is basically Sopher's home-made criteria versus what the sources actually say. I think the former can safely be disregarded. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to enter my opinion as a non-partisan editor who saw the past debates but was not part of them. I support a third column because the Kurds clearly have a separate motivation in the conflict and are a third column not just because they do not care who rules Syria so long as they have autonomy, but because they have fought both sides in the conflict. One does not fight one's own allies consistently. The opposition and the government would surely like to believe they have the Kurdish section of the country on their side, but this is a segment of Syrian society which is clearly not part of either the "opposition" or the government forces. --Respite From Revision (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Lets go by what the sources say

Kurds fighting alongside rebels

http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2012/11/syriakurd655.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/world/middleeast/some-syrian-kurds-resist-assad-defying-conventional-views.html?_r=0

Kurds fighting each other

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/03/rival-kurdish-parties-militias-syria-clash-pyd-pkk.html

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/05/pyd-arrests-syrian-kurds.html

http://world.time.com/2012/11/05/syrias-kurds-civil-wars-within-a-civil-war/

http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2013/3/syriakurd759.htm

PYD leader Saleh Muslim declaring friendship with opposition, does not recognize nusra invaders as opposition rebels.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/world/middleeast/syrias-kurds-try-to-balance-security-and-alliances.html?pagewanted=all

The Syrian cvil war is a conflict between the Government + its allies versus opposing groups.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-civil-war-president-bashar-alassads-forces-plan-assault-on-rebels-in-aleppo-8652161.html < second to last paragraph

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21578057-more-decent-rebel-groups-are-being-squeezed-between-regimes-forces-and

http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/israeli-troops-return-fire-into-syria-5393385

http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/15430 (I don't regard al-akhbar as a reliable source, but I know many others do)

The infobox is not saying there are no clashes between rebels groups. Why do you think we have a line between many many of them? What about Ghurub al Sham, wouldn't that need a fourth column by the 3 column logic?

Take a look at the Iraq war page. Shiites and Sunnis on same column.

In conclusion, by reliable sources, logical methods, and by example, we should either label the left columns as Syrian government and its allies /or/ Pro-Assad forces and the right column as Opposition forces /or/ Insurgents

or just take out Kurds from the info box, and put a link to the Kurdistan conflict. Sopher99 (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sopher. Please take a look at the infobox as it stands. Examine it closely. Direct your attention to the bottom of the right-hand column. See what it says. Does it say Kurds? Hm? No, it does not. It says clearly "Kurdish Democratic Union Party", whose YPG militia are the most significant Kurdish force on the ground by orders of magnitude, effectively ruling the vast majority of the de facto autonomous Kurdish zone in Syria.

This means that most of your sources are completely and totally irrelevant to the point you are trying and failing to argue. I'm not in the mood for fish today. Yes, there are ethnic Kurds fighting for the FSA. The founder of Ghuraba al-Sham was an ethnic Kurd, and Kurds are not totally deaf to calls for jihad, either. Some ethnic Kurds are probably still serving in the army as well. None of those has any bearing on the positioning of the PYD/YPG in the infobox. In fact, it's as pointless and stupid as when people suggest that we should add "Chechens" or "Saudis" to the infobox because a number of jihadis happen to be of those backgrounds. The fact that the PYD is repressive toward groups in the Kurdish opposition—not to be confused with the Syrian opposition, even (allegedly) rebel-sympathetic parties like Azadi and Yekiti have long since deserted that circus—is similarly immaterial. In fact, most of those sources make it pretty clear that the PYD/YPG are pretty fucking distant from the rebels.

Additionally, you clearly didn't bother to read your first source, which starts right off with: " The Kurdish Freedom Party is rejecting claims that its forces fought alongside the Free Syrian Army (FSA) against the People’s Defense Unit (YPG) during clashes last Friday." Oops. Not only is Azadi distancing itself (whether true or not) from the rebels, it clearly states that the YPG and the FSA were engaged in combat against one another. Clashes have occurred between the YPG and the rebels pretty much anywhere where the two groups have come into contact. Some clashes have stretched on for weeks and claimed hundreds of lives. Yammering about how jihadis sometimes scuffle with "FSA" or among each other just shows how little you understand the status of the PYD. The scales and scopes of rebel infighting and of combat between the YPG and rebel groups are in no way comparable. In fact, clashes between the YPG and loyalists are less frequent and less severe than those between the YPG and rebels. When you present two groups which spend more time fighting each other than their supposed "common enemy" (as that is what alignment suggests), you are presenting a factual error—a lie.

You keep squawking about sources. What sources are saying that the PYD/YPG should be split off from the war, that the conflict in the Kurdish regions of Syria is unrelated to the fighting across the country? Did the Tawhid Brigade step into a parallel universe in their recent aggression in Kurd Dagh? Boilerplate "over 9000 ppl die in dis war in which rebls fite govmint" paragraphs tossed in as afterthoughts near the end of news articles to satify word minima aren't indicative of anything other than laziness. Ideally, far down the road when this war ends and fades into memory and scholars step in to make quality sources, the amount of material here sourced to quasi-primary sources like news articles will shrink. WP:NEWSORG: "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports". Articles having such reductionism and lacking mention of Kurds are particularly irrelevant.

TL;DR spend some time actually researching and following this aspect of the conflict instead of distorting, selectively ignoring, and creatively reading whatever sources come up in a Google search to spin a POV to impress the #FSA crowd on Twitter. Your "let's stick to what the sources say" sounds more like "I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about so I'm going to just toss anything I can scrape up at you". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Rebels have cut access to a Kurdish area in northern Syria and clashed with Kurdish nationalist PKK fighters whom they accuse of backing President Bashar al-Assad, sources on both sides said on Thursday.

The confrontation threatens to open a new front in Syria's 27-month-old civil war, in which Kurds, who form about 10 percent of the population, have so far played a limited role.

Fighting erupted overnight on the edge of Ifrin, a rugged, olive-growing area on the Turkish border, the sources said.

Four people were killed, bringing to at least 30 the death toll from battles and assassinations in the last few days.

[Reuters]

Kurds are not part of the opposition they are mostly neutral this last report shows that kurds are not on the opposition sides so remove them from there allies list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.251.46 (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Too few uninvolved people show up when these things are discussed, and that means Sopher and Future (and Sayerelle) can keep pushing their "one happy opposition (with token Kurds)" line, even though it goes against the sources. We need more uninvolved editors here, and perhaps admins. The article is basically conz-worded by three self-confessed pro-FSA activists, who make little effort to come up with credible sources or convincing arguments to support their stance here. So whatever the sources say, there will always be at least these three editors to tag-team revert anything that puts the armed opposition in a bad light. FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle supports a third column, judging from his comments in the "Kurds" archive. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

@Lothar - you are right, - funkmonk has got my position on this matter, wrong.Sayerslle (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

There's two editors who've weighed in who weren't recently involved in this article: myself and Respite from Revision. We both stated support for a third column, based on the sources. I have noticed that they keep repeating themselves; making arguments that had already been addressed. It seems to me that they're the ones who are beating a dead horse. Just add the third column, and if they revert it in spite of the fairly clear consensus we can discuss other ways to deal with the issue. —Quintucket (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Including Tocino, who started this thread, that makes us five for (including all the sources) and two against, not to mention those in favour in the past. That seems legit. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Latest: (Reuters) - Islamist rebels have cut access to a Kurdish area in northern Syria and clashed with Kurdish nationalist PKK fighters whom they accuse of backing President Bashar al-Assad, sources on both sides said on Thursday.[69] Common goal? Lawl. FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The latest news supports our decision to add a third column while the opponents of that move bring up news from months ago in a war that changes every day. It's quite obvious that the Kurds have diverged from the other rebels over time. People use articles like this to understand the conflict and to learn more and to become educated on middle eastern affairs, and I think it's a disservice to those people to represent the Kurds as being a part of the main rebel alliance in the war. --Respite From Revision (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• Since there is now overwhelming support, I think the edit should be made. FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
• I have now made the move. Note that the infobox has been moved to a separate page, and can only be edited there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_civil_war_infobox FunkMonk (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think they just should have 2 columns, because, even though the Kurds and Reberdes have faced each other, still fighting both against Assad govierno and not between them, so that deveria back to 2 columns.201.215.191.134 (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That is completely wrong. The Kurds fight the "rebels" way more than the government. These days, they don't fight the government at all. Likewise, the government has no interest in attacking the Kurds. But the "rebels" do. The "rebels" want Assad gone at any cost, the Kurds don't care if he stays, as long as they have autonomy in their regions. FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Unambiguous support for the Kurds in a separate third column. They fight for the autonomy in their regions and they have no common goal with the rebels.

Gaston28 (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Unambiguous support for the Kurd forces in a separate third column. Per sources, facts and common sense...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support per funkmonk. Pass a Method talk 15:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Claimed Iranian involvement

As some editors had included Iranian forces as belligerents in the infobox (with no real proof, differently from the Hezbollah involvement, wich had been confirmed by Nasrallah), I found it severely dubious, if not something worse. For example, there had not been a single Iranian Army victim, while it had been Iraqi, Turkish, Lebanese and Jordanian Army victims, with neither of that armies listed as belligerents. Moreover, in the strength subsection of the infobox the alleged Iranian forces are defined as military advisors. As far as I know, when a country send military advisors to a foreign war, they are listed as support, not as combatants. See for example Argentinian military advisors in the Guatemalan Civil War or Soviet military advisors in the Yom Kippur War. If someone could logically explain that perceived double standard...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It was removed some time ago. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

But Iran is still among belligerents, despite no confirmation of direct involvement and no casualties. Shouldn't we remove it? At the moment Spain has more verified record of its' citizens fighting in Syria than Iran does. --Emesik (talk) 18:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

We Should remove it because Iran is not directly involved.182.178.85.212 (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The claim that Iranian troops are in Syria fighting on the side of assad is sourced. The sources refer to statements by a "US state department official" and some senior people from the Iranian military. Are there sources that contradict this? Have things since changed? Two of the three sources are less than two months old. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There are sources which say the opposite. US State Department official is no more credible in this context. --Emesik (talk) 10:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

TippyGoomba, you had answered yourself by stating that what USA says in a claim, nothing more, nothing less. As others editors had pointed here there is not a single proof of that alleged Iranian involvement as a combatant force, I would say that even theres no proof of the role of Iranians as military advisers, and if that role could be confirmed, they should be moved to supporters instead of belligerents. Otherwise would be a clear case of POV-pushing...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have sources I can look at? Emesik has already provided this. TippyGoomba (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

[70],[71],[72],[73]. Need more?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

All this is just iranian officials denying, of course they are going to deny - but a few admit. Not to mention captured Iranian revolutionary guards, and the state department sources. Sopher99 (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

FSA claims of "captives" are not to be taken seriously either. FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why this source wasn't put in earlier. Hacked stafor emails published by wikileaks shows Iranian troop action as early as 2012. http://www.businessinsider.com/bi-leaked-stratfor-emials-iranians-firing-on-syrians-2012-3

So now we have a USA source, an Iranian source, a rebel source, and a source from wikileaks. Sopher99 (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

HCPUNXKID, three of the four sources you've given are old. This one is interesting. However, stacked up against other sources, I don't see a reason to remove Iran from the list of combatants. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This is just silly nonsense. The Institute for the Study of War and the American Enterprise Institute wrote a 40-page report on Iranian involvement.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'll repeat it again: If the Iranian forces are military advisors, why they are listed as combatants instead of supporters? Because, as I had pointed upwards, countries with military advisors on a foreign war are usually listed as supporters, not as combatants. Of course, if someone could give reliable sources confirming the Iranian involvement in combats (not Stratfor,FSA or an USA think thank source, wich are clearly biased. Its funny to see that sone editors claim that type of sources to be reliable when talking about their enemies, but simultaneously deny credibility of Press TV, for example), I would change my mind...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The current sources are a may 2012 guardian source, an august 2012 foxnews source, and a may 2013 washingpost source. Recent sources disputing this claim are this presstv source and this irib.ir source. Then there's this recent business insider piece which refers to leaked emails confirming Iranian involvement. I left our sources which I didn't think were relevant to the discussion (old and primary sources). I'm not sure what criteria is used to determine when someone ends up as merely a support but my impression is people are just making it up as we go along. I'd be interested to hear someone lay down a criteria. TippyGoomba (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that a general criteria must be made to define in wich occasions we called a foreign force in a war supporter and when belligerent, otherwise this will depend on the POV of the editors, and will happen the non-sense that military advisors are defined as supporters or combatants depending on the personal opinions and ideology of the editors.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I would say that belligerent is someone who directly uses military force to kill other party or damage their equipment. Still we have no hard evidence of such involvement of Iran. I'm pretty aware that Wikipedia is more about what sources say than about facts, but the sources aren't credible in this matter. Iranian military involvement is a similar story to the CIA arms supply: the other side says it happens. --Emesik (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Kurds and map

In the infobox, the kurds are now in a third column. However, the map (File:Syrian Civil War.svg) lumps together kurds and opposition. It would make sense to have a map with a different color for kurds. An easy way to achieve this, is to replace this map with the more detailed map (Template:Syrian civil war detailed map). That map has a good coverage of kurdish cities & towns, including cities with mixed control (kurds with others). The map could be put at the end of the article so as to occupy less space… Tradedia (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

That would also reflect what news sources do, which is separate the three. This article has been on the wrong track for too long, many POV errors have become deeply engrained. FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Would be better to add an additional color to the existing map (and a friendly one for people with color-blindness for that matter) than using the alternative proposed by Tradedia. Despite being more detailed and including three parties, the second map is a mess which I never found easy to navigate (too many things on the map, often not explained adequately in the key, not to mention the irritating aspect of red and green dots overlapping). Kkostagiannis (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

For better or for worse, the detailed map has effectively rendered the old Libya-style map obsolete. Whereas the detailed map receives near-daily updates, the old map sometimes goes weeks without an update. It's more accurate than virtually every other map I've encountered of the conflict outside of Wikipedia as well. It definitely has its shortcomings, but it's here to stay. If you have concerns or suggestions on how to improve its readability, you should bring them to that map's talkpage.

That said, the detailed map is probably too large to transclude directly onto the mainpage, so perhaps the simple map may still have some utility (though the detailed map should be linked). The colours need to be switched−the green=govt red=rebel paradigm is based on the colours of each side in the Libyan conflict, and in Syria, it's the opposite—and a Kurdish colour added, for sure. The current colours (lime/red-brown/blue) were chosen specifically to be accessible for most forms of colourblindness, so we may need to experiment before we can get a workable fourth colour. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the svg isn't updated that regularly (it is just that the date of last edit is not always transferred to the caption in the main article). Besides, it displays far fewer places than the detailed one and as such it is natural to get updated less often. Anyhow, i don't have particularly strong feelings, it is just that I prefer it simpler. Kkostagiannis (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Do we really need that svg map? We could just remove it from this article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Could the black (or is it grey? Brown?) perhaps be replaced with another colour? Someone mentioned colour-blindness. I'm colour-blind, and I have a difficult time discerning between the dark blue and the black there, especially when they are close to each other. The background could also be more different from the green, perhaps more yellow/orange, or make the green clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting sources

Firstly, the material you wish to add would be more appropriate here since that template is about the wider civil war.. Secondly you use low-quality sources. Thirdly, you misrepresent sources: If it says Azadi, you should write Azadi. Pass a Method talk 14:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edit does not comply with template guidelines stating "major groups" or "improving reader understanding". Pass a Method talk 14:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't edit war please. Pass a Method talk 14:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I changed it from KFP to Azadi. They are the same organization anyway. The sources like NY times and Monitor are of good quality. Sopher99 (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Azadi has been clashing with PYD as lately as 5 days ago, I added a source for that just now. Sopher99 (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

My edit does comply with the template guideline. The Azadi group back in March had thousands of fighters, the Orsam.org source says they are the most effective anti-assad group. They are the PYD's biggest rival too. Sopher99 (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"Azadi" actually refers to two related but distinct political parties, one headed by a Mustafa Cuma and the other by a Mustafa Oso.

"Thousands of fighters" is one thing to claim, another to demonstrate. What battles have these many fighters fought? You show sources, but none of them show any evidence of Cuma's branch (or Oso's, for that matter) being engaged in anything other than brief street scuffles, and even then only with YPG fighters. Even now, as the PYD is intensifying its crackdown on competition, the Kurdish opposition continues to use mainly peaceful means of resistance. "Most effective anti-Assad group" is meaningless for our purposes here without evidence of combat against loyalist forces, for which there does not seem to be any proof at all. The ORSAM source even clearly states that this "effectiveness" was in organising protests in 2011. Hardly a relevant point in an article about a civil war. The standard for inclusion here is neither strength of man- or firepower nor verbalised sympathies, but significant military action—which this party has not once engaged in.

In fact, one of the allegations that PYD figures level against Cuma's party is that they are allied with the rebels—allegations which Cuma continually denies (see e.g. the Rudaw source you slipped into the infobox). Cuma maintains that "fighters of other Kurdish parties are only there to protect the people and their own offices", not for supporting the rebels. The only significant Kurdish groups that can rightly be considered to be fighting in that second column would be the Saladin Brigade and maybe the Kurdish Future Movement, whose former leader was assassinated by alleged pro-Assad gunmen in late 2011.

I find it especially funny how you decide that "no consensus" is a good justification for removing e.g. Israel from the infobox, but as soon as your desperate quest to slap a Kurdish flag on the side of the rebels is opposed, suddenly you fall back to the "template guideline". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

For your first statement, I am referring to Cuma as the sources say. For you second prose, what you believe to be trifle matters only stems from the lack of death tolls reported. The orsam.org is used to clarify where the Azadi loyalty lies (concretely anti-assad). Whether Cuma likes it or not , his party is pro-rebel. I have a New York times source, which I used repeatedly in the debate, in which Saleh Muslim outright stated he was friends with the FSA and that he did not recognize the attackers on ras al ayn as true rebels. Not to my surprise - you turned it down, for the jis of the point I am now using. Finally no consensus to change something keeps it at status quo. It just so happens that this talk section is about removing Azadi , and since there is no concensus - we don't remove it. Sopher99 (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

"Lack of death tolls reported" sounds an awful lot like "nothing has been happening". The PYD, much like its parent, is often accused of being opaque in its operations and underreporting its deaths. Cuma's party does not have the weight in numbers or guns to afford such a lack of transparency. If its supposed "militia" had been involved in any significant battles, they would have been reported at least somewhere. The ORSAM source quite clearly states that this "effectiveness" against Assad was in organising a few protests in 2011. It's 2013, and I have not seen so much as a knife-fight between Cuma's "militia" and any loyalists. "Pro-FSA" is a meaningless statement without concrete evidence of engaging directly in combat alongside them. Might as well put you in there if that's our standard of inclusion. Right now, your designation basically relies on PYD mudslinging (should change "Azadi forces" to "drug dealers" if that's the kind of support you're using) and distortions of source material. This is a Frankenstein job even for you.

If it's Kurdish FSA buddies you're after, go do some research on the Saladin Brigade, which is quite active in and around Aleppo mainly, and the Mashaal Tammo Brigade, which fought alongside JN in Ras al-'Ayn.

For the record, my dispute with this began less than a day after you added it. I've been too busy IRL to engage in sustained talkpage disputes, but now that I have some free time, I am able to. Pretty much only you support this, Future's lukewarm "just add it" seems more out of exhaustion with this kind of cagefighting than any real support. Only you and you alone have been reverting my and others' removals, and have been told at AN3 to back off. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The fact is I have sources for clashes as recent as a week ago. So they are consistently fighting. Just because the PYD and Azadi don't report their death tolls, doesn't mean there are any. I also have sources that put them on the rebel side, whether or not they fight together. Ghurub al Sham and Alqaeda in Iraq doesn't fight with the FSA, we still put it in the same column. The azadi militia has several thousands soldiers months ago, and are probably even bigger today. Sopher99 (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the "Amuda Massacre"—what you (and the PYD) claim are "clashes", the Kurdish opposition calls "firing on (peaceful) protesters" (see e.g.: [74]). "Concealing death tolls" is one thing, concealing armed conflict is another entirely. I have not seen one instance of Cuma's supposed militia engaging in any large-scale conflict. And furthermore, armed clashes/firing on protesters a week ago does not demonstrate "consistently fighting". That's like saying that since you slept with someone once last night and once four months ago, you've been rutting like rabbits in the meanwhiles. Illogical.

You still fail to understand the standards for inclusion in the infobox. It isn't verbal sympathies, it's armed action and bloodshed. If this were an infobox about protests, you'd have a case, but as it stands in this article about a war, you have nothing. The YPG have fought the army on numerous occasions and have lost many militia. Where have Cuma's "thousands" been? If they're so "anti-Assad", why haven't there been any reports of them fighting loyalists? Why does Cuma continually say that charges that his fighters are fighting alongside the FSA are "baseless accusations"? Two and a half years of conflict, and only a few scuffles—only with the YPG. A militia of thousands could quite easily cause much trouble in West Kurdistan, the PYD wouldn't need to make excuses about "drug dealers" to exercise crackdowns.

I've been throwing two Kurdish groups at you repeatedly for which you can certainly find solid support for adding them in the second column, yet you continually ignore this and edit-war a marginal group in on very shaky sourcing against warnings given to you at AN3. Remove Cuma's group, add one or both in, and you can have your pro-rebel Kurds without needing to present half-truths and distortions of source material in a very visible infobox. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

If the group is involved in any fighting, just add it. We even include Lijan militias and some foreign Shia militants, who haven't done much at all.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The conflict between PYD and Azadi is just political and on prtopaganda level. According to Mustafa Cuma (leader of Azadi) We have no interest in fighting PYD, and if there are some FSA groups who pretend to be Azadi and attack PYD, is not our responsibility [75]. So Azadi and and PYD do not belong to two different belligerents. In fact, both parties accuse eachother of not being loyal to Arbil agreement, which required mutual cooperation between the two as Kurdish Supreme Comittee. Roboskiye (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC)