Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 20

This is an archive of past discussions about Syrian civil war. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

→

Length

We're up in the 210k range now, and the editing lag for this is getting pretty obnoxious. Anything that can be tightened or cut should be. Keep in mind that we not only need to present what has happened, but also leave room for new developments. Honestly, we probably spend too much space here on military developments, while shunting the colossal humanitarian problems to a mere subsection towards the very end of the article. We have battle/campaign articles for finer details on various military operations, and while death and destruction may be more interesting to watch and record, it's also a very incomplete picture of the war. To illustrate, we devote 6 paragraphs to the peripheral hubbub over chemical weapons, while only one to the hundreds of thousands of civilians who have fled their homes and are in extreme poverty and hunger (45,000 in Azaz alone, which is only just now receiving aid [1]). And that one paragraph looks to be half the size of the one we devote to one single Turkish plane getting shot down. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree with that. A war is about military conflict first and foremost. As callous as that may sound, imo humanitarian issues are a subject of their own and shouldn't really be over-emphasized. -- Director (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the single scraggly paragraph on refugees, I don't think humanitarian issues are overemphasised—if anything, they're underemphasised. I'm not saying that the article should go on an on about it, that the proverbial tables should be turned against war coverage, but that there's imbalance in the article—e.g., chemical weapons speculations and the Turkish plane non-incident.

Regardless, the article is too damn long. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe we can put it back to underneath 200,000 bytes by removing excessive references.Sopher99 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a short-term fix at best and does zilch for improving the quality of the article. It's a start, though. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

As before, several redundant images could be cut. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ankara embassy bombing

Should the recent Ankara bombing be mentioned in the article, along with other international incidents? The group responsible for it says "It is the Syrian people who will decide how, and by whom, Syria will be governed. The AKP government is a lackey to imperialists who seek to overthrow al-Assad, who refuses to bow his neck to them… We condemn the use our land for the imperialists’ interests against Syria."[2]. The group is pro-Assad, but the Syrian govt doesn't seem to be involved in it.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on that, yes, a brief mention of interest. If more comes out about this later, of course, it would weigh in much more heavily. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Ankara bombing is related to the Syrian Civil war, but indirectly for sure. The group that did it is an old, well known Marxist group, the Revolutionary People's Liberation Front (DHKP-C), that hasn't been nearly as active as it had in the 70's, 80's. It was apparently one bomber who was known to be involved in '97 Istanbul attacks. This is not pro-Syrian or much to do with Syrian politics. The reason for the bombing is because of American presence because of the conflict, and that is how it is indirectly related. So, is it enough related to put on this area as a new article or just as a place in the article? Jacob102699 (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Lol, if Israel isn't a belligerent, how the hell is this incident relevant to this war? No Syrians were even involved. You guys amaze me. FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
It really shouldn't be mentioned... from what I read, the group responsible is a far left kurdish group seeking independence from turkey and was striking at the US embassy because of the US support of turkey. Jeancey (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Future, based on this most recent info that I've found, now I'd say "no" until this story gets firmed up: "Turkish authorities say belonged to the Marxist Leninist organization known as the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party, or DHKP-C ... Ecevit Sanli, as he was identified by Istanbul police, died after detonating his bomb ... While theories have been floated, neither Turkish nor U.S. authorities have detailed why they think Sanli blew himself up." HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It should be mentioned, as the group responsible for the attack claim the role of Turkey in the Syrian civil war as the main reason 4 the attack.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2013 (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)

Syrian rebels cooperating with Israel

"Assessing the damage to the facility is difficult. Cellphone videos shot by Syrian rebels show burning buildings at what is described at the research center, but the damage seen on those videos is somewhat light. " http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/world/middleeast/syrian-weapons-center-said-to-be-damaged.html?pagewanted=2 Monticores (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Rebels video tape everything from Quneitra to Qamishli. This does not show coorperation with Israel.

If a warplane explosion occurs, rebels in the area would come to the site to video tape the damage. Sopher99 (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The article did not mention Syrian rebels cooperating with Israel. Filming the aftermath is hardly cooperating with Israel.--Liquidinsurgency (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

syrian government did not disclosed the location of the research lab. And the bombing site would have been sealed off by the syrian army immediately after the bombing. So rebels were conveniently near a top secret syrian military research facility when israeli warplane bombed it? Monticores (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

And that^, ladies and gentlemen, is what WP:OR looks like. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Rebels present within view of a secret government facility? Whatever could they be doing there? :) Monticores, Assad's opponents are everywhere. If the demonstrations in Latakia, his HOME TOWN, were bad enough to warrant the use of warships, there is certainly no lack of anti-government people in the rest of the country. And if the government troops were any good at sealing things off, this war would never of happened in the first place.--197.170.28.93 (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Utter failure to keep a secular opposition

Here is a quote from this reuter article, made from a rebel within Aleppo: "They don't have a revolutionary mindset," he said, putting support for Assad at 70 percent among an urban population that includes many ethnic Kurds, Christians and members of Assad's Alawite minority. But he also acknowledged that looting and other abuses had cost the incoming rebels much initial goodwill. www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/08/us-syria-crisis-rebels-idUSBRE9070VV20130108

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21061018

No. More. Pretending.

The most relevant opposition now-a-days in Syria are the Islamists. Why not have the article reflect it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No where in the entire article does it say the FSA are secular. that 70% includes neutral people and people just tired of the conflict. In fact Jahbrat al Nusra is the most popular group in Aleppo. [3] Sopher99 (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

They're certainly much more prominent than even 3 months ago, but given the patchiness of news, it's hard to make a judgement either way. At any rate, this conflict has been raging for almost two years now. For most of that time, the secular opposition was the dominant force, with Islamists at the margins. Better discipline and top-notch battlefield performance has meant that Islamists have been gaining much support quickly, while the FSA has been floundering as of late. However, this article is supposed to present the entire conflict, not just the newest developments. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

-Well it doesn't seem to do either well. I'm afraid to edit, because I don't want to get into an edit war, and while the Syrian people have my best, I cannot be bothered to go back and forth with others on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.86.235 (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Martin Chulov in the guardian 17 january - "A week of interviews with rebel groups in north Syria has revealed a schism developing between the jihadists and residents, which some rebel leaders predict will eventually spark a confrontation between the jihadists and the conservative communities that agreed to host them.

Some already talk of an Iraq-style "awakening" – a time in late-2006 as when communities in the Sunni heartland cities of Fallujah and Ramadi turned on al-Qaida groups in their midst that had tried to impose sharia law and enforce their will through the gun barrel. "We'll fight them on day two after Assad falls," a commander said. "Until then we will no longer work with them." In recent weeks Liwa al-Tawhid and other militias who form part of the Free Syrian Army have started their own operations, without inviting al-Nusra along." [4]Sayerslle (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A little counter to Sopher's bogus "secular FSA" numbers: He then stressed, "We will fight until we establish an Islamic state in Syria. Even the 75% of the Free Syrian Army is fighting with this in mind. We don't want it as strict as Saudi Arabia, but we will not let go until we achieve our goal."[5] FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a certain silly someone didn't bother to read what the other guy wrote! Sopher said "No where in the entire article does it say the FSA are secular". Oopsies! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a certain silly someone didn't bother to check the archives: "5 - Secular defectors make up half the FSA, Islamist make up 30%.Sopher99 (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)" FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow great. Too bad this thread isn't the archives. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. The point is that the Nusra boys themselves claim the FSA is 75% Islamist. Which is highly relevant to the subject of this thread. FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You believe what al Nusra says at face-value? So when they come out with the statistic that 90% of Syria is anti-assad and the other 10% are just hezbollah, you'll believe it right? Sopher99 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Should we believe what the FSA says at face value? Considering the morality of the FSA is absolute. Oh right, this is the same FSA that has been accused of looting in Aleppo. If the FSA member in the above Reuters article says Assad has 70% of support amongst the people within the city, should we believe this is a gross underrepresentation and he has close to 95% support? 99.9999999999999% support? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.85.144 (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting how the 'Brave Protesters' of a while back, have turned into the murdering armed-gangs, car-bombers and church-attackers that they are today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.61.158 (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Calm down. I said face-value. Ie believe without thinking. Sopher99 (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

My numbers are basic math. Islamic front (unification of all islamic brigades, including the moderate islamist tahwid) claims to have 25,000 members. Al nusra claims 10,000 members, but I have heard as low as 6,000. 25,000 + 10,000 = 35,000. 35,000/120,000 = 29.16 %, or plain 30%. Sopher99 (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I see your math, and that is fine, but can I get some evidence that the opposition really has 120,000 members? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.85.144 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC) I see the interview of Voice of Russia with Riad al-Assad that quotes FSA fighters at 100,000, but leaders tend to exaggerate in order to make their forces seem indestructible. Fidel Castro managed to convince Batista and the U.S. that his guerrilla group of a few dozen in the Sierra Maestra were thousands. Hitler managed to convince the French that he had hundreds of thousands of Germans crossing the Rhine into France. Where is the neutral numbers regarding FSA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.85.144 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

All of you have good points, but would it be more useful to put forward a concrete suggestion as to how this should all be reflected in the article itself (e.g. proposed text), instead of general discussion of numbers? So for instance, in the section on the FSA, you could write "source A has reported in (date) that B% of FSA fighters are Islamic militants.(source) By contrast, in (date) source C stated that only D% of FSA fighters were members of Islamic Brigades.(source) According to the Al-Nusra front, 75% of the FSA is Islamist; source F has stated however that the FSA is largely secular, and that some members of the FSA have been critical of Al-Nusra's support and tactics.(source, source)" You all follow this more closely than I do and so are better poised to write something, but text like this wouldn't commit the article and would just allow readers to see what different sources have claimed.-Darouet (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Already done. Check the Free Syrian Army article itself. This is a summary of the civil war. We only spend a sentence or two on Shabiha, Hezbollah, and Iraqi Shiites, we only need to spend a sentence or two on the growing power of Islamists. Details about opposition and government forces go in their main pages. Sopher99 (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You're mistaken: there's a long section in the FSA article that describes its relationship with Islamists, but that finds no expression in this article. In fact, the only reference to Islamists here is a sentence suggesting no relationship at all: "Clan leaders in Syria claim that the armed uprising is of a tribal, revenge-based nature, not Islamist."-Darouet (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

items blocked

Hi all,

Why a lot of recent or ongoing items are blocked ? Siege of Homs, Battle of Aleppo, Rif Dimashq offensive (November 2012–present), Battle of Darayya (2012-present), 2012 Hama offensive

Maurcich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.246.105.242 (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

copyright violation?

My small edit got r/v because of so called "copyright violation", and I have no idea what copyrights I violated. Was I not supposed to use any sources? The infobox looks like crap and I was cleaning it by removing names of figures that are no longer on the scene (like Abdulbasset Seida) while returning some important names that got removed months back (like Rustum Ghazaleh). Please, if there really is a "copyright violation" just remove that rather than r/ving the whole thing. Thanks. Moester101 (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Its not possible to edit the infobox in any way. That's called WP:STONEWALLING. I tried to remove the silly list of Syrian government agencies, and was reverted. I tried to remove non-combatants - and was reverted. -- Director (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You added the Hezbollah and PFLP-GC flags, which are copyrighted and only permitted for use on the main article for each group. Additionally, Iran is a state, not a group. Feel free to trim down the "commanders" list, though. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

journalists?

wha foreignt journalists are in syria currently, from any reputable sources?.174.91.111.201 (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

thers an article here - huffington post article on anniversary of marie colvin killing - [6] Sayerslle (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Government or regime

I don't know if it was discussed already, I checked and did not find recent results like this. I want to know whether this article is okay regarding the use of the terms "government" and "regime". As sometimes to refer to the SAA we use "government" and sometimes "regime". Should we decide to choose only one of them for the article?--Andres arg (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I say "no" - it adds a nice variety in style and it's very clear in the meaning.HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this was discussed before. The term "regime" has negative connotations, so it should be avoided for NPOV reasons.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was discussed before and was decided since we were not using the term terrorists for some of the rebels we were also not going to use the term regime as it had been found to be a weasel word. So no to the word regime. The neutral terms for both sides forces is ether pro-government or Army and opposition forces or rebels. EkoGraf (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Fouad Ajami : " I think the early claims of Assad - that he was a nationalist, that he wanted to build a strong state, that he wanted to heal the rift betwen the Alawis and Sunnis [are] all claims shown to have been fragile and false - in the end, it was about the rule of the family." - - Bashar Assad "only candidate in 2007 - president for life - dictator of Syria - it became easy for Assad to believe the well-being of the country was synonomous with his own well-being" (David Lesch) - and Hafez got 99.6% of the vote in 1991!? - anyway, regime is used in a lot of RS Sayerslle (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a WP:WEASEL word—those are vague constructions that give the impression of sourcing without being sourced. It is, however a WP:LABEL and thus POV. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the WP:LABEL note it does say, "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources" - and regime is , of course, very widely used by reliable sources.Sayerslle (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The term "government" is also widely used, and has much less POV connotations. Unless you want to permit use of similar negative POV labels like "insurgents" or "terrorists" for the opposition, I suggest we follow strict NPOV on this. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, when I said weasel word I wanted to say a negative possibly personal POV word. Didn't express myself right. But in any case I agree, we should stick to NPOV procedure. EkoGraf (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I would also agree that government is much more neutral term.--Liquidinsurgency (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

But why was the term 'regime' used in the first place? Were Wikipedia interested being even-handed, then they should have used the word 'government' - from the start. That they failed to do so only adds to the impression that Wikipedia was/is following the US regime and its' attempt to paint the Syrian government black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.87.170 (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It is used because RS use it - from todays Guardian for example "A businessman noted with irony that when it was founded, Assad's Ba'ath party used to have socialist pretensions. "Now," he said, "it's the peasants and workers who are being bombed out of their homes, while the capitalists survive here or find easier ways to escape."

[-] a painter who spent two decades in exile in Paris and returned in 2008, is one of the few Assad opponents who was willing to be quoted by name. He draws charcoal pictures that express Syria's current sadness in elegant simplicity. "The country is increasingly being emptied by the democrats," he told me. "It leaves Syria to the regime and the Salafis. People take a risk by staying here but going to Beirut puts Syria at risk."

Every conversation is dominated by the rumble of bombing and the misery it causes as the regime seeks to keep control of "old Damascus", the area that lies inside the ring road and where regime supporters' homes and most government ministries are situated."

And this is typical, report after report. You used the word yourself. bit hypocritical to say wp shouldnt use it, when RS use it continually, and you yourself do. what do you want, wp just to parrot words and descriptors Assad regime or Russia Today or Press TV use? Sayerslle (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Surely the loaded term is used because it fits with the negative picture that is being painted about Syria. I used “US regime” to see how people (mostly in the US) might react to the term. For there are people around the world that consider the US government to be a 'regime'. With all the stress placed on the term 'regime' - used three times in bold - you give away your negative agenda. And, by saying that every conversation "is dominated by the rumble of bombing and the misery it causes as the regime seeks to keep control", you are clearly putting out (crude) anti-Syrian Propaganda. Should you not have gone to Fox News? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.83.41 (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

NCC as independent political bloc

The NCC was added to the article as an independent non-state political bloc. Subsequently, it was removed because (i) NCC would be part of the National Coalition and, because it's only just a part of the National Coalition, the existance of the bloc would be insignificant to the whole conflict.

First, is there any source the NCC is part of the National Coalition? According to BBC News and the Doha Institute quoting The 63-member council forms the political body of the Coalition and includes members of most Syrian opposition blocs, with the exception of the National Coordination Committee, the NCC is certainly NOT a part of the National Coalition.

Second, if comparing to BBC News, all the parties mentioned in the BBC article have a seperate heading in the wiki, with the exception of the SNC, being part of the National Coalition AND being explained extensively in that section. Therefore I suggest, the NCC is worth mentioning in the article. Especially because of the pacifist stance in between the government forces on the one side and the National Coalition, supporting the FSA on the other side, including the NCC would counter the image of a Syria being divided into two homogeneous blocs. This, while a majority of the Syrian population is not politically involved and rather does not care too much but to stop the violence between the rivalling parties. (Note: this however does not mean this apolitical majority would affiliate with NCC, I'm not saying that either). --Wormke-Grutman (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The page constantly exceeds 200,000 bytes. And it took alot of work to trim it down.

We can change the National Coalition sections's title to "political groups". We can put it there. But we have to summarize it. Sopher99 (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You do not WP:OWN this article, Sopher. Please accept your edit is opposed. -- Director (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I never said I owned the article. I was giving him a possible solution that fits both of the problems me and Wormke-Grutman are noticing. Sopher99 (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

@Sopher. The content you blanked sports sources that directly contradict your claim in your "reasonable explanation". Should you start edit-warring here over your POV without consensus you can be sure you'll be reported. I believe your behavior on this article exhibits a clear pattern of edit-warring and bullying, and as such its entirety will be brought up for review by the community should you decide take it over the 3RR line this time as well. Please accept your content blanking is opposed and without consensus at present. -- Director (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sopher's edits are supported by the clear majority. They are also balanced. Try accepting that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.217 (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I could certainly accept it if I could see the majority. Where are they? -- Director (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The majority is everyone here who isnt you or funkmonk. And both the Kurds and the FSA are rejecting the Assad dictatorship. This line you are pushing that Kurds love a dictatorship that bars them from both citizenship and political office is bizarro and smacks of the worst kind of reality denialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.243 (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. This hasn't anything to do with Kurds or FSA rejecting Assad's dictatorship. This is on how to include content on the NCC in this article.--Wormke-Grutman (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree to summarize and to change the National Coalition section's title to "political groups". Like we've done for "Ethnic minorities", I propose to make two or three subsections: National Council (SNC), National Coalition and NCC (any other opinion?)

Wow :), how did I know the IP's answer will refer to the "majority" in Syria supporting Assad or whatnot? -- Director (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Because wow, that is how a democracy actually works. Like wow.

I also propose to put sectarianism above "political groups", just under the FSA section. In this way, "political groups will appear just above "ethnic minorities". If no one opposes, I'll make the edit: Re-arranging the political section and compacting the body text.--Wormke-Grutman (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree to all that except switching the order of ethnic minorities with political groups. The Political groups, much like the FSA and Shabiha, make up a physical component to the struggle, while the ethnic minorities lean towards a qualitative side to the war. Best to tell the hard facts first in the article followed by people's "speculation", not the other way around. Sopher99 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

UN investigators find evidence of war crimes by both sides

The United Nations Human Rights Council commission investigating Syria released on Feb. 18, 2013 a report detailing in 131 pages extensive evidence of war crimes and other abuses in the six months up to mid-January 2013.

The top United Nations human rights official, Navi Pillay, has also urged that Syria be referred to the International Criminal Court. Authority to make such a referral, however, lies exclusively with the Security Council or the country concerned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/world/middleeast/un-rights-panel-says-violence-in-syria-is-mounting.html?_r=0

In their latest report, based on 445 interviews, the investigators said they had found credible evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by both government and opposition forces in the six months to mid-January. The report cited accounts of massacres, summary executions, torture, attacks on civilians, sexual violence and abuses against children.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/world/middleeast/un-rights-panel-says-violence-in-syria-is-mounting.html?_r=0

The report released Monday is to be discussed in the Human Rights Council in March, when member nations appear likely to extend the commission’s mandate. Diplomats in Geneva point out that the panel is the only United Nations-mandated machinery shedding a spotlight on abuses, and that its reports provide the most comprehensive and factual account of how Syria’s conflict is being waged.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/world/middleeast/un-rights-panel-says-violence-in-syria-is-mounting.html?_r=0

Attempted Moves toward new rebel government

At the moment, the press is still using the term "Syrian government" to refer to the Assad regime, which is still the only reasonable use of the term, but this interesting news story suggests this might be about to change: "Opposition seeks north Syria government" [8]. Ditto Deutsche Welle [9]. The Economist also has an interesting article here.

What terms should we use as and when there are two entities both claiming to be the sole legitimate government of Syria, each controlling different parts of the country and recognised by different sets of international entities? Perhaps "Ba'ath Party government" and "rebel provisional government" respectively? -- The Anome (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

There was a similar situation during the last years of the Lebanese Civil War. Let's wait and see what the media adopts, instead of making up our own original research names. FunkMonk (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Some people on this site must have a problem with understanding. For despite a general agreement on the need for balance and fairness, they continue to push the term “regime”, when talking about the Syrian government. They also use the loaded title: “Moves toward new rebel government”. Will not the US regime be proud of you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.87.216 (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

1, There is still none so no point in discussing it yet.
2, It will heavily depends on whether that rebel government will be inside Syria and will be taking care of daily needs of areas under their (weak) control like NTC did in Libya or whether it will be government-in-exile with no real power. If later, I don´t really see point in going heavily into this. If former lets take a route like in Libya. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

According to this NYT article, local civilian councils are being set up to govern rebel-held towns.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Renewed support for opposition combatants

Whilst the discussion over the Infobox status of the Kurdish faction and Israel as a belligerent appears to be progressing at a shockingly slow pace (despite the failure of any editors to defend the contradiction between including Turkey and Jordan, whilst exluding Israel from the infobox. As not a single editor has challenged me on this argument); it appears we may need to rethink the NATO power's status in this conflict in light of these new developements.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2013/feb/28/syria-crisis-opposition-seeks-military-help-live

I would assert that this latest pro opposition initiative would classify the US as a "supporter" and should perhaps be reinstated in the infobox. Of particular relevence should be the following quotes: 'Some of the $60m in aid will go to rebel military council', 'US reported to be training rebels in a third country', "We ask our friends to give us every backing to achieve gains on the ground and help reach a political solution from a position of strength, not weakness ... We expect to receive political, humanitarian and qualitative military support."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/02/27/uk-syria-crisis-opposition-idUKBRE91Q17220130227

'Syria opposition to seek "qualitative" military support at Rome meeting' Can there be any doubt at this point of direct US interference in this conflict? Does military "Training" and military "funding" not count as military support? Surely the answer is self evident at this stage in the war. MrDjango (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Once the aid goes through we can put the United States in as a supporter to the FSA. Sopher99 (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

At this point, it's just talk. I think we should wait until actual action is taken, and has an effect on the ground. But the Israeli and Kurdish issues are still very urgent. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Size of the Syrian armed opposition

The New York Times has quoted General Idris of the FSA as saying that there are up to 300,000 rebels of various groups acros Syria. This is probably an exaggeration but perhaps it should be included in the infobox? Kspence92 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.77.238 (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

No. It is certainly not reliable. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

National Defence Force

Seems there is a new multi-sect pro-Assad militia, which unites all the previous ones. "Order in the city appeared to be largely enforced by the 10,000 paramilitaries of the NDF, made up largely of Christians and Alawites from the ruling religious group who fear retribution from the mainly Sunni rebels. However, about 4,000 members of the force are Sunnis loyal to Assad.".[10] Should replace Jesh al-Shaabi in the infobox. ~~

See Talk:Jaysh al-Sha'bi. ~Asarlaí 02:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ignored background

Here's a nice article[11] all the way back from 2007 that explains that the Bush administration was already in contact with Muslim Brotherhood groups back then to put pressure on Assad. Needs to be mentioned under background, it is a huge oversight. Puts the whole "revolution" into perspective. "The White House views Syria -- along with its allies, Iran and militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas -- as a main threat to stability in the Middle East. So it is exploring the potential benefits of engaging with the Brotherhood. Despite its checkered record, the Sunni group could provide a counterweight against the rising influence of Shiite political power in the region. It could also, the reasoning goes, emerge as a force for democratic change.

The U.S. has traditionally avoided contact with the Brotherhood across the Middle East. But now the State Department and National Security Council have begun to hold regular strategy sessions on Syria policy with the NSF and is funding an organization linked to it. Senior officials from the State Department and the National Security Council confirm the meetings. The U.S. has also discussed with the NSF and linked groups ways to monitor elections and promote civil society in Syria." FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Bush asking the Muslim Brotherhood to promote civil society 6 years ago? SO IT IS A CONSPIRACY! ALL EVENTS IN SYRIA PEGGING FROM THE HAMA MASSACRE TO THE DARAA PROTESTS TO AL NUSRA TO SCUD MISSILES CAN BE ROOTED TO BUSH ASKING THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TO BE MORE CIVIL! The Revelations.... Sopher99 (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol, I knew you would respond like that. Yes, this "revolution" has been waiting since 1982, and the MB has just taken advantage of the poor peaceful protesters we saw fleetingly in the very beginning, until a bunch of policemen were gunned down in March 2011. If the US government has coordinated tactics with the MB, then yes, that is a "conspiracy" by the very definition of the world. In any case, it needs to be mentioned that these relations go back to way before the conflict began. We don't need to imply what it means in the article, because it speaks for itself. But I guess that is enough to make you fight tooth and nail against its inclusion, no? We wouldn't let the pet-rebels be painted in a bad light. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You overestimate the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood do not hold command of any Islamist fighters in Syria. And that is saying alot because the amount of islamist fighters now rivals Afghanistan, and certainly exceeds Somalia and Yemen. People like the leaders of Ahrar al sham have had 10000x times the influence the MB had on Syria. Not a single islamist fighter in Syria would tell you he began fighting on suggestion of the MB. 1000x more people would sooner tell you they are fighting for the sake of Abu Golani, and those are still a minority of the fighters. The MB is not in Syria, and what more is that Moaz al Khatib, who actually lived in Syria all the way to 2012, has hundreds of times more influence than the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, as he was the iman of ummayad mosque and he actually knew people. Other than a few hundred people lobbying in Turkey, the SMB is pretty much non-existent. Sopher99 (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the article's inclusion, first off we need to be subscribers to see that article, so we can't even verify if what your saying is correct. Second its original research, but both of those arguments pale into comparison to the fact that it is fringe - for suggesting that Bush asking the MB to be democratic is a root cause of the conflict - and not notable, because we have no source saying that Bush ended up having an effect nor do we have any source saying that this incident remotely had any effect on the Syrian conflict Sopher99 (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol, you're the resident expert in throwing up unsourced speculation as if it was fact. The thing is, Qatar supports the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the FSA, and Saudi supports the Salafists, which is the rest of the Islamist fighters. Anyhow, it's besides the point. That article explains the US gov supported and coordinated tactics with the main Syrian opposition group ("National Salvation Front") all the way back then, and that's important to mention. If it doesn't indicate a "conspiracy", why are you then afraid to add that single sentence? Will you come with a page size excuse? Wasn't it you or one of the other in the gang that added a completely usleess paragraph about "anonymous" turning against the regime, as if that had any significance in real life? As for the articles "intentions", I could access it without subscription just a few hours ago. And please spare us of your imaginary numbers and percentages. Everyone is ignoring them by now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The Muslim Brother hood is not the FSA. Not single member of the FSA - secular or Salfist - has a single thought about the muslim brotherhood on his mind. I am not afraid of adding. I am simply telling you its not noteworthy. We have no signs or sources whatsoever that a) bush actually had an effect on the MB, or b) this had any remote effect on the conflict at all. Sopher99 (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you're incredible. You know what individual members of the FSA are thinking. And you know every number and percentage, allegiance and motive, related to this conflict, though even US intelligence agencies don't have a clue. I gather you don't know Arabic, or have any actual relations to the conflict, other than Internet research. Are you aware of how ridiculous these claims sound? And yes, the FSA is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. Defected Syrian soldiers flee to Turkey where the MB opposition organises them in the FSA. They own it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thats correct. When you following on Twitter dozens of dozens of people within syria, including the FSA batallions and contacts, from day 1 you tend to know a bit more than cia heads who just sit on their desk worrying about stability. By your logic the cia knows alot more about the Syrian situation than you do, so why don't you listen to them?. I am telling you the truth, ahrar al sham, the islamic front, al nusra , and everyone in between do not give a damn about 3 or 4 "muslim brotherhood" leaders in Turkey. Their spiritual leaders happen to be within Syria, or fighting alongside them, except in the case of Abu Golani. The MB does not organize anyone. Erdogan's men do. Jesus Christ. Sopher99 (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless you provide a RS source that links this Bush initiative or whatever you say it was , as a part of the background to understanding the background to the Civil war, - then its just OR. Sayerslle (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It shows that the US supported the opposition long before the conflict. That is all that needs to be added in the article. And the source itself is an RS. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

@FunkMonk - i can't read the article -its pay to read. what I read doesnt really endorse what you are claiming - it would be a great Assad-ian POV leap to arrive at what you are saying from the short paragraphs i read. Sayerslle (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said, it was online when I posted it. Google, madapacka, do you speak it? A mirror:[12] FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Lulz at Sopher... Are you seriously telling me that because you follow Twitter, a certified rumour mill, you know more than everyone else? You don't think the CIA follows Twitter? Are you that delusional? I knew people who have actually fought and died in this conflict, and your "Twitter accounts" have as little significance in real life as a dead rat. It is preposterous, you guys must see very little action in real life, since you volunteer as Wikipedia POV warriors, and probably think you can influence history or some other conceited nonsense. And Erdogan's party is a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot, so yes, whoever controls the FSA in Turkey is part of the MB. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Your delusional. Thousands have died in Syria to show the world whats happening. Specifically activists. Your just a Lebanese guy in Denmark who can't get over the fact that a supporter of the March 8th bloc is being brought down after 50 years of oppression. Erdogan is a "light" Islamist. Islamists and the MB are not a bad thing. Salifists are. I assure you America has crazier people than Islamists like Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin, but we do just fine. Its the people throwing scuds at their own nation who are the problem. Sopher99 (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol. What you don't understand is that you don't need to support either armed side, especially when you're not involved in any way. You seem to think you're on some kind of noble quest to save a doomed revolution. And in the process, you ignore all the unaligned secular groups, that do not support either Assad or the Islamist rebels. Those are the ones who need your zealous help, not the mercenaries who fight for the Saudis and the Turks. The regime use Scuds against "their own people". The rebels use suicide and car bombs "their own people". Big fucking difference, huh? Supporting either is morally indefensible, yet you seem to have no problem doing just that. I've visited Syria and lived in north Lebanon within the past years, so excuse me if I find your Twitter arguments unconvincing. I'm personally affected by this conflict, yet I don't even use a quarter of the time you spend here on POV-warring. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not against "unaligned secular group" . You don't see me talking about them because this is the Syrian civil war. Notice the "civil" and the "war". Same goes for you. Syria doesn't need the support for the Hezbollah and Iranian mercenaries. All you have proven is that you hate the "muslim brotherhood". People who I listen to lived in Syria right now for decades. So excuse me if I find your arguments unconvincing. Sopher99 (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Saad Hariri lived in lebanon longer than you. I think I'll listen to him over you regarding lebanon affairs. Sopher99 (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Everyone from the region has known an Islamic uprising was underway in Syria since 1982. That it took you and other Westerners by surprise and you now think you're part of history and know what's happening on the ground because you've followed Twitter for a couple of years is simply conceited beyond belief. You don't think opposition Twitterers might have an interest in spreading rumours and lying to you? Do you just lap it all up? It has become an industry now to make naive westerners feel "part of it", and show them around in bombed out buildings and refugee camps. And to be down with the rebel kids on Twitter. LOL. Much of my family lived in Homs until recently. They won't be going back, for obvious reasons. Overrun with Salafists, that is. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

What lying? I have plenty of video evidence (that is in the hundreds of thousands of videos) ( not mention on the ground independent reports by journalists, and later confirmations by SOHR). Very hypocritical of you considering that Syria has a ministry of information (ie ministry of propaganda). Blah blah blah westerners know nothing I have families in Syria blah blah - yeah and so does every one of the 60,000 people Assad has killed. You won't be returning to Homs because Homs has been obliterated by artillery shelling. 800,000 displaced. Not to mention the shabiha thugs running around establishing "alawite" markets of stolen goods from Sunni residents. Face it, with 3 million internally displaced, 1 million refugees, -40% GDP, 200,000 randomly imprisoned, 70,000 dead and 3 billion in damage of Aleppo alone, Assad has turned Syria into a place worse than Somalia. Sopher99 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol. Because videos and Twitter posts can't be faked, and the "rebels" are not doing exactly the same things as the government. I've made my point. Keep living in your Revolution Disney Land™. FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A few? yes. Hundreds of thousands? No. Verified videos? No. Ive made my point. Keep living in your Chavistsan foreign conspiracy land. Sopher99 (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol.[13] No such videos should be believed, be they government or rebel produced. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for showing the only 3 faked opposition videos over the course 2 years out of hundreds of thousands. You are really breaking the barriers of sanity here. 6 videos, 3 of which opposition 3 of government? You got to be kidding me. Sopher99 (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol, yes, because I want to waste my time and link to the dozens of other faked videos that have been uploaded. That was one link in a quick Google search. Do you think I care? Won't change your mind anyway. The insurgents could behead your mom, and you would still cheer for them. FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

And Assad and his shabiha could knife your entire family, let alone cluster bomb them, and you will still cheer for them. But you feel safe in Syria because your a "fellow alawite"Sopher99 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

getting a bit out of hand ? it should be content not contributors - going on about 'a little gang of internet revolutionaries' 'conceited' etc doesnt help does it , just makes it personal - content not contributors is the rule, funmonk, youre quick to cite OWN and such , what about content , not contributors? Sayerslle (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope, because I'm not pro-Assad, and have never claimed to be so. There can be no viable Syrian state with either the Ba'ath or MB in power. We need a secular, multi-confessional government, consisting of people who never took up arms. But as things are looking now, it will probably end up with a Ba'ath/MB power sharing arrangement, which is a shame. Nice try, though. As it is now, you're playing into the hands of the extremists on both sides. FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thats all besides the point. 1- This bush thing is original research. There is not a single source saying that this ties into the conflict in any way shape or form.

2- Its not notable. Yes America is going to support opposition in undemocratic countries. Duh. Second of all this is 'moral support and guidance. Not physical support. If bush right now supported the MB, we still wouldn't put it in the article because its not physical support. Sopher99 (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I repeat: "Despite its checkered record, the Sunni group could provide a counterweight against the rising influence of Shiite political power in the region. It could also, the reasoning goes, emerge as a force for democratic change." That is not my interpretation. That is what the source says. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

thats a couple of administrations ago and a Republican administration - do you have RS that can help show how did the Obama administration carry on this plot to get rid of Assad with Salafist help?Sayerslle (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ill repeat. What does this have to do with the Syrian civil war? Rhetorical Politics with a group outside Syria 6 years ago has nothing to do with the background of the Syrian civil war. There is not a single source in all of sourceland that connects this with the Syrian civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is that the US has been involved with the Syrian opposition and the MB for years before the uprising. Readers can make up their own mind on what that means, and I'm not proposing anything that's not in the article should be added. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This stuff is completely undue. The article is already too long. Let's just keep things simple.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Says the guy who devoted a paragraph to the non-event that "anonymous" turned against the Syrian government. The double standards here are amazing. FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The number of Syrian army soldiers

http://globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Syria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.201.0.22 (talk) 18:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Syrian rebels kidnapp 20 UN peackeepers

Plenty of sources, no mention: [14], [15], [16], [17] etc..

This urgently needs to be added, if it has not been already. Also in relatively recent news: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/syrian-rebels-to-receive-armoured-cars-and-bullet-proof-vests-from-uk-promises-hague-8522898.html Now I believe Armoured Personel Carriers and Ballistic Jackets are military materiel [[18]] and the UK should therefore be considered a direct supporter of the opposition/FSA? http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/08/292544/iran-military-not-present-in-syria-cmdr/ Confirmation by Chief of Staff Iran; Major General Hassan Firouzabadi that Irans military is not involved in the Syrian conflict, and that Iran has no personel officialy active in Syria. Reported by Iran's Press TV. I suggest adding a disclaimer to the infobox stating that Iran's involvment is disputed; this is a compromise between the polarized opinions of several editors including me. MrDjango (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I dont see what is so 'urgently needed' to be included about the story. they have been released now anyway. what is so urgent about it to be included in the arc of the syrian civil war narrative? on the training of rebels in Jordan thers an article in the Guardian [19]. and this has report of Irans Mohammed Ali jafari confirming forces from IRGC Qods force in Syria [20] - Sayerslle (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Important because it is the first time that UN peacekeepers have been directly assaulted by rebels and the first reported instance of kidnapping of UN personel in Syria. R.E. Commander Mohammed Ali jafari's statements, Cmdr. Hassan Firouzabadi has greater authority and his statements are the latest from Iran. Iran has also claimed that Ali Jafari was misquoted by western media. Also I didn't mention NATO training of rebels in Jordan, but I'm certain this adds to the argument for adding these western countries to the infobox; I was talking specifically about foreign minister William Hague's confirmation that APC's, military vehicles and Ballistic jackets (presumably Kevlar-type vests) are to be transported to Syria along with the new funding. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21684105 Any opposition to adding the UK as a "supporter" on the infobox? MrDjango (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It was agreed here Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Syrian civil war that we don't include the West if all they are giving is non-lethal aid.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

what about Russia and its lethal aid ? "The head of Russia’s state arms exporter said on Wednesday that Russian deliveries of weapons to Syria, including light attack jets, would continue despite the civil war." (feb 2013)[21] if this was agreed before the civil war that is irrelevant - the fact is there is a civil war - and Russia/Putin anti-democratic dictatorship is supporting Assad regime Sayerslle (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Since they have kidnapped 20 UN peacekeepers, set off car-bombs, attacked churches, killed 40 troop inside IRAQ, it could be time to reconsider using the term "rebels". In relation to such people, might not the name 'Armed Terror Gangs' be more correct? 86.190.61.237 (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

wikipedia follows RS - the language in RS. if you are in LOndon you should know that is not how the rebels are described in British papers and TV-- wikipedia use/mirror the common names in RS as I understand it, not the language adopted in ideological ghettos for ideological propagandist reasons. Stalin called his enemies fascists but if wikipedia had been around in a free country it hopefully would have not called them fascists, and puppet-like repeated unthinkingly a dictators words, but reported something like 'stalin calls all opposition to him 'fascist'. Sayerslle (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

And yet, and unlike Stalin, the US government - with its' Communist Witch Hunts and Red's-Under-The-Bed scare tactics - was far better at hiding its' true ideological propagandist reasoning. Right now, it seems that the US is still using the same kind of disinformation, aimed at undermining the Syrian government. So that despite the news that there are Armed Terror Gangs kidnapping UN peacekeepers and killing troops inside IRAQ, the US media - often puppet-like and unthinkingly - uses terms such as "Freedom Fighters" or "Brave Protesters". Given that Wikipedia is not an arm of the US State Department - should it be using terms such as "Rebels"? 86.190.61.237 (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

First off western media has never called the protesters brave, nor ever called the rebels freedom fighters. Second of all over 130 nations voted to condemn syria in UN Assembly. 20 abstained, 20 voted no, the rest couldn't pay their un bills to vote. Palestine also condemned syria during a vote in the Arab league. Hamas voiced it support for the opposition. The Hindu times to the JarkataPost to the Malta times to the Sydney morning herald. You can't possibly blame this as an American conspiracy if the news media of 150+ nations are reporting the same thing USA media does. Not to mention Palestine (both Hamas and Fatah) supports the Syrian rebels. It was Sunni Anbar tribesman who killed soldiers inside Iraq. The only armed terror gangs in Syria are the Syrian army and the shabiha - literally armed terror gangs (Internationally illegal groups meant to spread terror with firearms). Sopher99 (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol at your last sentence. You don't even try to hide how biased you are any more. People who bomb civilians (by plane or car/suicide bomb) are bad people. We should all agree on that on the talk page at least. But it seems Sopher is hell-bent on glorifying his Twitter rebels to the bitter end. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)