Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 13

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 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Ahrar al-Sham and Sukur al-Sham

Both Ahrar al-Sham and Sukur al-Sham are fighting, this is sourced. And both are newly created groupd that did not exist before this war. Your explanation as "they don't fight under their color" is both comical and unsourced. Stop using every strategy to hide the groups from public eyes. Wikipedia is bas on the sources, not on your personnal opinions, once again. It is unbelievable how you place yourself above the sources --DanielUmel (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The user EllsworthSK is also teaming up with L7laseral to avoid the rules. Can someone revert his last unacceptable deletions of sourced content please? --DanielUmel (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well for starters, there are dozens, if not hundreds of Islamist, Secular, Tribal, and Revolutionary based brigades and organizations in Syria. We only list the main ones. The rest is covered by puting Syrian opposition or by putting Muhajideen. I7laseral (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Still, they should be put on the list if they are notable, never mind if they are small as a group or not. EkoGraf (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The infobox exists to highlight the more important aspects of the conflict. It should not be the place for an exhaustive list. We don’t list all the brigades in the free Syrian army, do we? Tradedia^talk 18:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't include brigades, we include notable beligerents. EkoGraf (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

According to Help:Infobox: “The infobox quickly summarizes important points in an easy-to-read format.” It is not for every notable component. Besides, many of the brigades of FSA are larger and more impactful than the Mujahideen groups listed, and are therefore more notable. Tradedia^talk 21:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

They are not notable. If more sources discuss them as sepearate important groups maybe you have stronger case — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 22:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources discussing plenty of brigades that are a lot more important and notable than the Mujahideen groups listed. Tradedia^talk 23:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Boohoo. I listed source twice for your own satisfaction, yet you never bothered to read it. So again, this [1] and specifically this part Elements of the Lebanese group Fatah al-Islam and the multinational Abdullah Azzam Brigades have also crossed into Syria; they are not fighting under those banners, however, but simply as "mujahedin.". We already have Mujahedin listed as combatants. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Since when Arhar al-Sham and Sukur al-Sham are "the multi national Abdullah Azzam Brigades", especially when I provide a source stating that theyr are homegrown jihadists groups? You don't even read your own sources as it is merely an excuse for trying to pass your personal opinions.

So now EllsworthSK ego has decided to remove two new islamists militia under the prextex that they are an old foreign group? And without any source at that? And you think you will get away with such poor quality of edits? --DanielUmel (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahrar al Sham are also notable:

"“The Salafis have their own support, and it’s strong,” says Abu Trad, referring to the Ahrar al-Sham brigades comprised of adherents to a more orthodox form of Sunni Islam. “I don’t blame them, but we started before them, we spilled our blood, I think it’s a grave injustice to us that they have stronger support.”

"Indicators stress that the actual number of these foreign groups is likely to be higher which are "especially active in detonating roadside bombs against regime targets," among them are Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham groups, who have acknowledged that they adhere to the al-Qaeda views."

Here a proof that they were the strongest rebel group near Al Haffa

"“The army only controls the area directly under their tanks,” said Mohanned al Masri, a member of Ahrar al Sham, one of the groups based in the Al Ghab Plain and the primary supplier of rebel fighters at Al Haffa. “Here, the regime has already fallen.”"

And here it says that most foreigh fighters are joining this group

"According to Reuters, in the last few months a steady flow of Arab men from several countries have joined the FSA forces, and most have headed to the province of Hama in central Syria where a few jihadists, or Muslim religious fighters, with experience in Afghanistan have been giving them rudimentary training in handling assault rifles and guerrilla warfare.

Reuters has also learned that these Arab men were planning to join a unit called the Ahrar al-Sham brigades, adding that most of the foreign fighters had joined this unit. “It is our duty to go to the great Bilad al-Sham (Syria) and defend it against the Alawite tyrants massacring its people,” said Bin Shamar, 22, who spoke to Reuters in Reyhanlı, a Turkish town whose Arab inhabitants have historic links with Syria."

And

"A young man, 'Mohammed' drove with the Telegraph through the Idlib countryside in his clapped out white Skoda, the steering wheel replaced by one from a racing car. His Kalashnikov lay in-between his legs. Dried blood from comrades who had been wounded or killed in fighting was streaked on the back seat, and religious verses played loudly through the cassette player.

"I was in al Qaeda and I love al Qaeda. Now I am with Ahrar al Sham group because they are stronger in Syria," he said. "I am supporting al-Qaeda's ideology because of America and Britain's actions. America does what she wants, kills as she wishes, robs as she wishes, and attacks innocents as she wishes. All she does is fight Muslims."

Clearly notable --DanielUmel (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that. I admit that I was wrong with Ahrar al-Sham brigade, they are not part of FSA. However, point with Fatah al-Islam still stands. Also one interesting point, since I re-read several articles about them, I found myself on the same article that was used as pretext for including AQI in the infobox. Turns out that that AQ guy, because of whom it was added there, said that he is member of Ahrar al-Sham brigade (telegraph article). So what do? Do you want to include them under AQI or leave it as separate, thus removing AQI? EllsworthSK (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You are finally admitting that you were wrong on this one? Nice. They have to be included as a separate force, under the Mujahideen, alongside with Al Qaeda and Jabat Nusra. --DanielUmel (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, the article which we use as a source for AQI (not AQ in general) talks about Ahrar al-Sham, which it says include former AQI operatives who fought in Iraq against coalition. I didn´t notice it back than since I was not aware of Ahrar al-Sham, but given the perspective you can remove AQ and add Ahrar under muji. The NYT source meanwhile talks about al-Nusra front, which is included in the infobox already. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. There are sources talking about the three organizations. All three are operating in Syria and it should be reflected. --DanielUmel (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Care to point out one source which talks about all those three organizations at once? Because NYT is mixing AQ and al-Nusra, calling al-Nusra either part, branch or having very strong ties to AQ (not clear at all). Same goes for telegraph where the muji at question says taht he fought on behalf of AQI against coalition, he loves AQ, he approves of their London and Madrid bombings and now is in Ahrar al-Sham. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Arhar al Sham are considered stronger than Al Qaida and Nusra, which are among the strongest on the ground, only shows the absolute need of their inclusion in the infobox. --DanielUmel (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not dispute rationale for their addition to the infobox, I dispute sources which talk about them and were misinterpreted in the past for AQ. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to point to you one last time that we go by the sources and not your personal analysis of the sources. --DanielUmel (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, this uptight behaviour again. I shouldn´t be surprised, but I guess I am too naive. In both sources group mentioned in a, al-Nusra b, Ahrar al-Sham. Read them. This is exactly same reason why we removed your AQ edit to infobox in Deir ez-Zor article and replaced it by al-Nusra. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

New source about Ahrar al-Sham http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/08/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE8610SH20120808

I have provided countless source about the group, now it has to be included. They are notable as proved by all the sources. --DanielUmel (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahrar al-Sham and Sukur al-Sham are just brigades of Mujahideen. We don’t list separately the brigades of the free syrian army. I should note that many free syrian army brigades are larger and more notable than those of Mujahideen. So listing the brigades of Mujahideen is undue weight. They are included in the heading “Mujahideen”. Tradedia^talk 01:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There are no goup called Mujahideen and therefore there are no "brigades of Mujahideen". This is an absolutely ridiculous original search. Thanks for trying but the sourced content about the two completely independant armed group stay. --DanielUmel (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I find it very problematic that the space reserved to “Syrian opposition” in the infobox is smaller than that for “Mujahideen”, eventhought they are a much smaller group. “Syrian opposition” has 3 items, whereas “Mujahideen” has 5 items. This is undue weight and misleading. You can talk about them in the text but not in infobox. Otherwise, I don’t see why I wouldn’t start adding the farouq battalion, Hamzah Al-Khateeb battalion, the touhid brigade, Salaheddine Al-Ayoubi battalion, Sham Falcons, Harmoush battalion, etc… These are larger and more notable than Ahrar al-Sham… Not to mention Regional Military Councils… Tradedia^talk 01:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Again, according to Help:Infobox: “The infobox quickly summarizes important points in an easy-to-read format.” It is not for every notable component. Tradedia^talk 16:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"I find it very pproblematic" Is that a joke? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore it does not care about your sensitivity on the number of items. If there are more independant islamist groups, they will have more items. Deal with it. I won't let your deletion of sourced content unchecked.--DanielUmel (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my sensitivity. It has to do with wikipedia’s policy relating to infobox. The islamist groups you added are not independent from al-Qaeda which is already there. The islamist groups are not more numerous than groups of opposition. We chose to summarize it into 3 items. This was our decision. We could have included many more. We could have decided to include Regional Military Councils, major battalions, etc. but we did not, because we are offering a summary. You are being unreasonable trying to put as many elements as possible under “Mujahideen” to push a POV. Tradedia^talk 23:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It is very surprising to see this one point being reverted and reverted and reverted, even being referred to as "vandalism" rather than just discuss it here. This certainly amounts to edit-warring, and I highly advise that this behavior stop. Here, here, here, here, and here are just a few examples in recent days. --Activism1234 19:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I can do nothing against the bad faith of Trededia. There is nothing left to say to him. When he revert a completely sourced addition of independant group who are fighting the syrian governement only because he do not want more item in one category than in one other, there is nothing to say. He is editing from bad faith and that is pure vandalism and "I don't like it" type of reverts. The talk is finished. --DanielUmel (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of "bad faith" coming from you is really the pot calling the kettle black. You started off this section in a nasty, accusatory tone. I had to change the heading from a borderline personal attack on another editor because you really don't seem to have any capacity to WP:AGF and act in a collegial manner. Your repeated accusations of "vandalism" to those following normal WP:BRD conventions further demonstrate this. Sometimes debates do get heated, but you seem to be at boiling point 24/7. Such an attitude is not welcome here. I suggest you shape up or find something else to occupy your time with. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Muslim brotherhood involved

The muslim brotherhood is also fighting the syrian regime so it should be added in the infobox [2] Baboon43 (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The muslim brotherhood is the Syrian national council. They are already listed. Also we already put Ali Bayonouni (MB leader) as a commander. Sopher99 (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Muslim Brotherhood is in the SNC, a MB militia is not representative of the SNC overall. FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

References supporting Iran/Hizbullah losses

Such claims should be included only when supported by major news outlets. Digging deep into the web in order to find something to prove them is not a good practice. Article by Ya Libnan isn't reliable enough because the website is run by the March 14 alliance, which is very openly opposed to Syria and Hizbulla. The Business Insider article is based on a Wikileak which is described as unverified. Wikipedia is not a place for such speculations.--Rafy talk 12:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've brought this up three or four times in the past already, but there were no responses. So they should probably be removed, if no one can even argue for their inclusion. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal regarding cities under rebel control.

I remember that for each city that was under Libyan rebel control, we used the National Transitional Council flag in the rebel cities infobox templates, because the argument was that the NTC was internationally recognized as a government in exile. I was making such edits to Azaz, Al-Bab, and Afrin, Syria before they were reverted under the concern that this should be discussed because of a matter of sovereignty. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

But is the SNC widely recognised? And do they even have any power on the ground? They don't own the Free Syrian Army, so it would be inaccurate to list the SNC flag. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The SNC is the most recognized of the rebel organizations in Syria, and plus the FSA is kinda aligned with the SNC as a paramilitary organization. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"Kinda aligned" is not enough for giving SNC credit for FSA gains. Also, some of the rebel groups don't care about Syria as a state (they wans a caliphate) and wave Islamist flags instead. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The areas out of government control are governed by LCCs [3]. In that manner, they are the real civic opposition force on the ground, not SNC. And NTC was harldy ogvernment-in-exile when they were based in Benghazi. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If they don’t let you change the flags in the rebel cities infobox, you can always look at the article Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War where opposition, Kurdish, and gov flags reflect the control status of cities and towns. Tradedia^talk 20:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Foreign fighters killed

Seems like that part has not bee updated for a while, 38?! If anyone can access it, this article may have more updated info on the matter: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/as-al-qaida-s-power-in-syria-rises-israeli-officials-ready-for-possible-attack.premium-1.455938 FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Haaretz may not be state controlled, but it is a very, very unreliable media. Don't let that one article fool you, it is very anti-assad media. They are little better than al dekba (well actually alot better, but still very unreliable). Sopher99 (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Eh, most sources used in this article are western, thus anti-Assad, what's your point? FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I had uptated the number to 58 but Ekograf removed it. --DanielUmel (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Because you didn't add a source with your update. EkoGraf (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

But you knew the source since they were in the Damascus and Homs page and you even posted one of them. --DanielUmel (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the edit you made was still unsourced. I can't add a source after you each time you make an update. You need to add sources yourself. EkoGraf (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move: Syrian Civil War to Syrian civil war

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War → Syrian civil war – This is ridiculous. I proposed removing the capitals weeks ago (here), then an editor made an official move request out of it (here) with the added request of removing the 2011–present bit. In the end, the administrator only carried out the removal of the date but left the incorrect capitals as they were.
"Syrian civil war" is not a proper noun and thus should not be capitalized per WP:CAPS. Mike Selinker explained the reasons behind this quite clearly here. TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Support per nom. Wikipedia is the only site where I've seen "Syrian Civil War" used as a proper noun. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Support Capitalisation seems unneccesary. kspence92 (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, it looks better. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Support. Obviously. Leave the Proper Nouning to Reliable Sources. "It looks better" is actually not a rationale. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not see the difference between the two versions. The "civil war" being used in Libya, however the English Wikipedia used the term with capitalisation for the English Civil War. If Syrian Civil War will be renamed to "civil war", we should change too at the English Civil War (to "English civil war" or "The Civil War"). --Norden1990 (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

English Civil War is a proper noun because it's an established term of periodization by historians who over time by general consensus agreed that the conflict has a proper name. This war is still new and ongoing and has not yet established itself with a proper name. So we name it descriptively, a "civil war", and not with a proper name, "Civil War". Usually someone will write an authoritative book or paper and that will set the precedent for future authors and over time the name sticks as a proper noun once it comes into common usage. As yet there is no real established consensus, but there will be, every war eventually does. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In English Wikipedia, most of articles use capitalisation: see Greek Civil War or Chinese Civil War etc. It seems that the most recent conflict, the Libyan civil war is an exception... --Norden1990 (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be flying over your head.... other conflicts are capitalised not because editors on Wikipedia decided that they should be, but because a majority of quality, reliable sources capitalise them. A few weeks ago this was still an "uprising"; don't pretend that major scholars and the mainstream media are have already reached a uniform consensus to refer to this conflict as the "Syrian Civil War". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutral -If you Google News search "Syrian civil war" [4](capitalization doesn't matter in searches) you'd find that both "civil war" and "Civil War" are being used. However "civil war" seems to be more common.---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Support agreed with Lothar, appearance has nothing to do with article titles. WP:CAPS specifically says that the only words that are capitalized are proper nouns. "Civil war" is a common noun. -- Luke (Talk) 19:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Support - Not a proper noun (yet). Green Cardamom (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose and comment: If you look at List of civil wars you'll see that the capitalised version is the more commonly used title. General consensus seems to lean to capitalisation. Additionally, this article has been nominated for moving/renaming so many times it's getting very silly. 2.217.121.150 (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Other civil wars are irrelevant. Those that are capitalised on Wikipedia are capitalised in the sources. This one isn't (as of yet). Simple, really. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - per common usage. Royal Mate1 23:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Since when have arbitrary Proper Nouns been Common Usage? Don't throw out English Civil War or American Civil War—those have been decided as proper nouns by years of historiography. No such firm source base exists for the name of this conflict. That is the "common usage" that matters. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Support. I haven't seen any reliable sources naming the conflict with a proper noun, so neither should we. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Support. I agree, "civil war" is definitely not a proper noun, decapitalize it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warioman86 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Support on the grounds that it has not yet received that as any official name; no other source capitalizes it as such. Perhaps once it's ended, it will be given a name like "Syrian Civil War of 2012", and then we can move it to that name. For now, lowercase it is. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 04:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Support. For now, this conflict is just a civil war in Syria. While it's possible that this conflict may eventually become universally called the Syrian Civil War, that likely won't be until after it's resolved, and by then it's possible it will be called something entirely different. For now, it's most accurate to reflect the ongoing nature of the issue with undercase, until the title of the conflict becomes verifiably concrete. Milhisfan (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Support per nom. If it ever becomes a proper noun, the article can be re-moved. Tupsumato (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Support Vast majority of editors support Syrian civil war as opposed to Syrian Civil War, also, it seems the majority of news outlets use Syrian civil war as opposed to the capitalised version. The discussion is therefore irrelevant if both majority of users and majority of news sources do not have a capitalised version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.171.167 (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Support per others. EkoGraf (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

'Giant 'who cares' you guys do realise you're having this massive debate about capitalisation right? It's basically right both ways, so i guess i oppose as there's no reason to chance the status quo. 94.193.234.10 (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you really don't care, why bother with !voting here? Doesn't make much sense. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really seem like a debate to me; consensus seems pretty clear. Zaldax (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Support It isn't a proper noun yet, and it looks rather unwieldy. I would recommend adding the date to the title as well (i.e. 2011-2012 Syrian civil war). Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose If Wikipedia is an encylopedia, it should be done in encyclopaedic style. If one wants to argue it shouldn't because it isn't a proper noun yet, it should still suffice until a proper noun replaces it, if only to be consistant with historical civil wars also listed on Wikipedia. And adding a date is also not necessary. There hasn't been another civil war in Syria since the foundation of the modern state (at the very least), so its not like there is an issue of confusion. As for the unwieldiness of the name, even in articles or other publications about historical conflicts they don't always use the full name or the capitalized name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.38.25 (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, other civil wars are capitalised because they are established in the literature as being Proper Nouns. That is the standard here, not "consistency". The most analogous conflict that this is temporally closest to is the Libyan civil war (note lowercase). No consensus has formed in the literature yet as to the name of the conflict, and so consensus here is overwhelmingly in favour of the lowercase. Having this article capitalised is thus "inconsistent". Having a proper noun "until a proper noun replaces it" makes zero sense. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Lothar, I think you have succeeded in making your opinion known. There's no need to argue with every single person who disagrees with you. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Making my opinion known is not my intention. I am trying to engage others who voice their opinions into explaining and defending them, rather than just drive-by !voting. This procedure is, after all, supposed to be a move discussion, not just a tally. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Well then, I have actually defended my point which I mentioned in my vote, in that it should be consistant (yes, consistancy is actually important) in its encyclopaedic style. There is no other Syrian Civil War in history that is actually referred to as such. Thus it is a proper noun in that the event is happening and the agreed upon name in media and normal parlance is Syrian Civil War. That it hasn't been made official by the media is immaterial as the media won't do so for years. But for Wikipedia to wait years for news entities to make it official so we can finally capitalize it is ridiculous. Unless for some reason it irks some copyright somewhere, I don't see why we can't just go ahead and accept that it is a proper noun. If a different proper noun is used to describe it in normal lay conversation by the people of the affected land and the media itself, THEN we owe it to them and posterity to rename the article. Until then however, Syrian Civil War works. It isn't a violation of decency or anything else to use it as a placeholder proper noun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.38.25 (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, because it is wikipedia, that means we HAVE to wait for years, until reliable sources start using it as a proper noun. If we change it now, then it is Original Research and therefore it isn't allowed on wikipedia. Does that make sense? Jeancey (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutral *Shrugs* Both spellings are used in the sources and are both right here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's saying that nobody uses Civil War, just that it isn't a firmly-established name by any standards. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose The whole proper noun issue is a red herring. Names of wars, with very few exceptions, just get capitalized. See Punic Wars, Crimean War, and Bosnian War, for example. There are reliable sources using this capitalization, including The Wall Street Journal, Der Spiegel, and ABC News. "Syrian civil war" is merely a descriptive phrase, and List of civil wars is indeed instructive in its overwhelming preference for capitalization. That some contemporary journalists favor that descriptive phrase is no indication that "Syrian Civil War" isn't the accepted name for this conflict. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
- "Just get" as in "just become [future action]", not "just are". The Punic Wars occurred millennia ago, the Crimean War well over a century ago, and the Bosnian War near up on two decades ago. No, not all names of wars become capitalised: Balochistan conflict, 2008 South Ossetia war, Kivu conflict, Civil war in the Republic of Ingushetia. None of the sources you provide is convincing: WSJ (capitalises all of its titles by default [5] [6] [7]), Der Spiegel (again, Capitalised Titles are the Default: [8] [9] [10]), ABC News ([11] [12] [13]). The "civil war" classification was only decided this summer, and "uprising" [14] [15] [16], "revolution" [17], and "rebellion" [18] are still cropping up. Use of the "descriptive phrase" in the body text is most telling: [19] [20] [21] (ABC news, even!) [22]. "Get" is not the same as "is", and at least waiting for the conflict to wrap up for a name to be settled on makes more sense than leaping to a conclusion in the midst of it all. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

BDD, the sources you cite don't make sense. In all three "Syrian Civil War" is only in the titles of articles, where all words are capitalized. Moreover your ABC link shows that in the bodies of its articles ABC is calling the war the "Syrian civil war" (lowercase). --Nstrauss (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose How is "Syrian Civil War" not a proper noun? "A proper noun is a noun that in its primary application refers to a unique entity." The rational for removing the dates was that there was never another "War" that was "Syrian" and "Civil", so the three words should then refer to the unique identity of the war between Syrians. Naturaly "Civil war" should not have full caps, but the title is "Syrian Civil War". Travürsa (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not a proper noun in that it just isn't. "Syrian civil war" is simply a description of the situation. It's not even the most common description, with numerous sources using terms like "Syrian uprising", "Syrian conflict", "Syrian revolution" etc. History will determine how this conflict will ultimately become known. Until then, "Syrian civil war" is a mere description, not a proper noun. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"It isn't because" is a bad argument. "Civil war in Syria" describes the situation, but the entirety of the "unique entity" is the "Syrian Civil War". And all of those should be capitalized because they refer to a "unique entity": a "unique entity" that goes by many names is still a "unique entity". Travürsa (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This "unique entity" exists primarily in your own head, not in the sources. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

How do we define a "unique entity"? Was the American Civil War not a "unique entity" until sometime after the 1960's? We've already established that this situation is unique to Syria (citing "[...] "2011–present" part removed because this is the only civil war there has ever been in Syria. --Tonemgub2010 19:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)"). Travürsa (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We "define" nothing, unless no common descriptor exists in the sources. A common descriptor does in this case exist, but is rarely, if ever, treated as a proper noun. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Support - Per other support arguments, it isn't really a proper noun (or it shouldn't be) and thus shouldn't be capitalized. It's the same situation as the Libyan civil war. Jeancey (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Support: Just because other civil wars from history are capitalized, doesn't mean that this one also has to be capitalized. I think that if you were looking for another civil war that is very similar to this one, it would be the Libyan civil war. And that civil war is not capitalized, so, I don't really see why this one should be capitalized. SuperHero2111 (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Libyan Civil War should also be capitalized. That its not is more to do with the same assnine arguments about waiting for posterity first and until then having a very unprofessional looking page than it does being an actual proper noun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.38.25 (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

9? WP:NAME: Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. That you find a descriptive title in line with what most reliable sources call it "unprofessional" is, quite frankly, your own damn problem. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Currently google has just over 35.5 million pages with the words Syrian civil war. Of those, only 1.1 million appear in that order. Therefore, the number of pages using Syrian Civil War extremely small compared to the total number of references to the event. That alone should provide enough reasons to uncapitalize it. Jeancey (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The numbers you raise are probably not reliable (issues with time frame, reliability of search results, et.c) but you raise a good point. We should be looking not only at the sources that say "Syrian Civil War" versus "Syrian civil war" but also the sources that describe the conflict as "the civil war in Syria," etc. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd also add that it appears the American Civil War wasn't capitalized until sometime after the war ended. Our page on the subject says that in 1962 the U.S. Supreme Court used lowercase letters, and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address] does the same thing. Of course style standards have changed since then, but I still think it's relevant. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

comment:This article by the Washington Post calls it the "Syrian civil war" http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/main-players-among-syrian-regime-opposition-and-rebels-in-the-countrys-civil-war/2012/08/15/cdc7d05c-e6af-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.178.61 (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Support - No more bureaucratic processes, just get on with it, there's overwhelming consensus for the move and it is per Wikipedia's standard practice and norms. It's such a trivial matter. James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:37pm • 11:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Support – Until the majority of reliable sources capitalise, it should stay non-capitalised. I think we're very close to consensus, so when's the move?--Paracel63 (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

About Hijab and Tlass

They were high rankings defectors, but I have not seen any evidence that they are now among the leaders and the commanders of the opposition. They placed themselves in the opposition, no doubt with that, but they have no group, no militia, no party. They don't hold any more their previous titles as they have been dismissed whend they defected.

Therefore, they should not be included among the leader of the opposition until they actually lead something. --DanielUmel (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Riad Hijab should also be removed from the infobox in the governement side, even before the date of his defection.

He was powerless, so not a commander, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/06/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE8610SH20120806

He was planning his defection before being named Prime minister, thus he was a treator and not a governement commander http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/syrian-pms-defection-being-planned-months-conjunction-fsa --DanielUmel (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This whole 'he planned his defection before having been appointed' thing seems nonsensical to me. How can one plan to defect from a function they don't even hold yet? I suppose it's a lie meant to appease the rebels so that they don't execute him on the spot for being a former regime collaborator. Furthermore, the claim that the Syrian prime minister is 'powerless' doesn't negate the fact that he was the de jure head of government, and so should be included in the infobox as such. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hijab was minister of agriculture before being appointed as Prime minister, it means that he was thinking about defection already at this point. Hijab never had any military impact, was a double agent before he was prime minister and finally just ran away in exile doing nothing for the governement side military speaking. --DanielUmel (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Re. the 'double agent' thing, see my previous post. As for 'doing nothing for the government's side military speaking': regardless of his actual level of involvement, he was the de jure prime minister and should be included as such. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The sources report that he was already with the opposition when he was appointed. We have to go with the sources. --DanielUmel (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

All defectors until now have been Sunnis, including Hijab, so this is a blow more to secularism than to the regime. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ironically the vast majority of Shias are twelvers, 75 million to be exact... all living in Iran... a radical theocracy. By the way gaddafi and Saddam were Sunni, so is Mubarak and Bouteflika, the current Jordanian king, and pretty much every secular arab head of state (Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait, president of Iraq) Sopher99 (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The Two largest Shia Organizations outside of Iran are Hezbollah (a terrorist organization) and the Mahdi army. Both which declare Jihad. I would stop acting like Sunnis are the only ones with radicals amongst their populace. Sopher99 (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

So what's your point in relation to my comment? And no, the Arab monarchies are hardly secular. Those long, unfocused rants are hard to decipher. FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

All prominent government defectors, but certainly not all. And Sopher, Kuwait and Yemen are anything but secular. Anyway, their removal from infobox is something I support. It may very well have its place in the article, I don´t see him being an opposition leader of either civic or military wing. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Certainly not all", so who are these exceptions? Rifaat al Assad? FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you realize that we are talking about hundreds of officials from government beuroctatic aparatus and tens of thousands from security services?

In another development, a first exclusively Christian brigade of the FSA was announced, a move that might itself be seen as potentially divisive [23]

the Kurdish Salahadin brigade [24]

Golan Druse start to turn against Syria's Assad

And as for Kurds, just look at what is happening in Kurdistan. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The government has left Kurdish areas to give Turkey something to think about, the Kurds themselves are still neutral (though some have actively fought the insurgents). As for defectors, there have been a few individual minority members from the army here and there, but none from the government. The Druze are hardly doing anything. FunkMonk (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This 'he had no real power' argument is getting ridiculous. Following that logic, we would have to remove Muammar al-Gaddafi from the Libyan civil war infobox because per his own jamahiriya philosophy, he held no power in Libya. Hijab was the official, de jure, prime minister of Syria and thus belongs in the infobox without a shred of doubt. Whether or not he really exercised any power is beside the point. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that Muammar al Gaddafi were holding all power in reality. I don't think we include Queen Elizabeth 2 among the commanders when United Kingdom or Australia are in a conflict. That's my first point. The second point is that, according to all the sources we have, he never was with the Syrian Arab Republic when he was Prime minister and was just waiting to run away.

I know that you are skeptical of that, but we have to go with the sources. --DanielUmel (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Re. your first point: we actually do include the prime ministers of Western countries when they partake in a conflict. Amongst others, David Cameron features in the Libyan civil war infobox.

Re. your second point: all sources say Hijab was the official prime minister of the Syrian Arab Republic for two months. So you're right, we have to go with the sources, and include Hijab. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

In UK the Prime minister has all the powers, in Syria he has none. I wonder wnhy you want so much to include a low profile bureaucrat who never had any decision making in the war, who only served two months and who was a defector in waiting from day one. --DanielUmel (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Because he held, according to Syrian constitution, second highest position within the state, just below the Bashar himself? EllsworthSK (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Whether or not he wielded any real power is beside the point. He was the de jure head of government and therefore has to be included in the infobox. Just like David Cameron is included in the Libyan civil war infobox. By the way, the UK prime minister does not have 'all the powers'. In fact, he has little power, and needs to obtain parliamentary support for almost any measure he wants to pass. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

He was not vice president (also powerless position). The source state that position is powerless and that he was forced in the position and already wanted to defect. He was never leader nor commander. I will remove him. --DanielUmel (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

He still had second highest position. Vice-president is below that. First is president, than PM, than speaker of parliament, than I don´t know. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The Vice President of Syria is merely the person who will become acting President in case of temporary disablement of the President. The Vice President is not the second highest position in the Syrian government; the prime minister is (on paper, at least). - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever his influence, he was the prime minister, the title itself is of course notable. Funny how these people suddenly discover how "murderous" the regime is the moment Qatari money is thrown at them. FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with DanielUmel, no proof that he has taken up a leadership role of any kind in the opposition. If you provide a source which confirms he is a leader, and a notable one, in the opposition, than we can add him. At this point, he has only escape the country and has not taken up a position in the opposition. Verifibility is a postulate of Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Referring editors to article 83 of the Constitution of Syria; effectively designates the Syrian Arab Republic (based on political doctrine) as a semi-presidential republic.

The President of the Republic and the Prime Minister exercise executive authority on behalf of the people within the limits provided for in the constitution, Also refer editors to numerous other articles specified in chapter Two of the constitution. The Prime Minister may not be a commander, but is leader of the most powerful executive body, for which the military chiefs of staff report to (i.e. Ministers of Defense, Interior and National Security). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper (talk • contribs) 04:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ideas for shortening the article

Here are some ideas for shortening the article:

Summarize sections of “Uprising and civil war”: a lot of the content here deals with events that happened on a single day. What we need are summaries of events.
New articles for “Non-state parties in the conflict” and “Foreign involvement”: each of these two sections can be summarized in a few paragraphs. The rest of the content can be moved to their own articles. All featured war articles on WP are organized chronologically (background, course of the war, aftermath). Any long further analysis is not necessary for the main page. Summarized ones can be moved to the end.

I hope this helps.---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Cooperation between rebels and Al Qaeda groups?

The following article quote two exemples of profund cooperation between classic rebels groups and Al Qaeda linked Al Nusra. http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2012/08/al_nusrah_front_conducts_joint.php#ixzz22kEQgPB9

First a statement by the group:

"In obedience to the command of Allah, and in support of His religion and to protect the oppressed in the Levant [Syria], the soldiers of the Al Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant, in cooperation with the Battalion of the Mujahideen of the Companions [Al Sahaba Battalion], carried out an attack on the police station of Jadida Artouz in the countryside of Damascus, killing all the elements, taking their weapons, and completely destroying the building. That was on the morning of Thursday, 19-7-2012."

Second, a report by a newspaper

"According to Abu Khuder, his men are working closely with the military council that commands the Free Syrian Army brigades in the region. "We meet almost every day," he said. "We have clear instructions from our [al-Qaida] leadership that if the FSA need our help we should give it. We help them with IEDs and car bombs. Our main talent is in the bombing operations." Abu Khuder's men had a lot of experience in bomb-making from Iraq and elsewhere, he added."

It appears that on the ground there is a level of cooperation that the Turkey based commander do not admit. --DanielUmel (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No - they only discussed a very recent operation in which the islamist al sahaba battalion cooperated with al nursra.

Al nusra is not an alqaeda group, its a standard armed jihadist group. Sopher99 (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The member of the group talks like if he was Al Qaeda. --DanielUmel (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And Tony blair talks like if he was George Bush. Tony Blair is still a member of Great Britain. Sopher99 (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It is hardly an argument. --DanielUmel (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As I already mentioned on other talkpage, the relation between those two are really shady. Are they allied, affiliated, or even armed wing of AQ in Syria? No source makes it clear. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Filmmaker Killed

I found this story though a forum somewhere.

Should this be mentioned on the Sectarian Part? I feel this is significant, in showing the marked increase of Sectarianism in the fighting. --Lionheart Omega (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at this instead: http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/syrian-rebels-kill-16-civilians FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

United Kingdom supports the rebels, Syrian troops had clashed with Jordanian soldiers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9468578/Syrian-forces-clash-with-Jordanian-soldiers-on-the-border.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19205204 142.197.8.220 (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Recently defected PM speaks out

Apparently, the recently defected prime minister Riad Hijab is speaking out about things now, and he claims that the al-Assad government controls "no more than 30%" of the country. In addition, not that anyone would have doubted it, he says he is officially joining the rebels.

If anyone thinks this is worth including, please do so. I'd add it myself, but I'm not quite sure where to put it, so I'll let someone else place it in an appropriate spot.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, it shouldn't be included in the article. Defectors often seek publicity with questionable claims. For instance, wasn't there a defected ambassador months ago who claimed Assad was on the verge of deploying chemical weapons? Furthermore, as was pointed out by the Guardian, controlling 30% doesn't say much because the Eastern 70% of Syria is practically uninhabited anyway. I suggest we take these claims with a grain of salt and don't include them. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This guy is being paid millions to say whatever the Qataris want. Not reliable. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Do not include. There is no significance in that statement. --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hijab admitted himself he was with the rebels from the start. He iis like a random rebel spokeman and no real power in Syria as I demonstrated above on thsi talk page. --DanielUmel (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

He did have formal power during his two months as prime minister. His claim of having been a rebel supporter from the start might as well be the Qatari money speaking, or fear of being executed by rebels, or both. That is all speculation, of course. The only thing we know for sure is that he was the official prime minister for two months. So that's what belongs in the article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the only thing we have to go is what he say. This is the only version on his postion and we have to go with that and not your Qatar money theory. --DanielUmel (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As I already said, but which you conveniently ignored in order to create a strawman, I don't argue that we should go with the 'Qatar money theory'. Nor should we use Hijab's own statement as a source. The only factual thing we know is that he was the prime minister, regardless of his true allegiance. That's fact and facts are what belongs in a Wikipedia article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Might I ask exactly where this "Qatari money" thing comes from? As for the link, I was looking at the BBC news website, and thought it might be of use, but apparently not.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the common practice. http://www.rt.com/news/syria-ambassador-qatar-defection-421/ And before the source is inevitably critisised, it's no less credible than many of the other rumours this article is filled with, sourced to "eyewitnesses" and "activists". FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Common practice though? Looks like one specific reported incident (which I can't say did not happen). Bit of a jump to assume that any Assad defector is being paid off though. Besides, it appears that your story is based on nothing more than allegations by Assad's government - "Damascus says Qatar uses its financial resources to promote defections..." Because Damascus wouldn't say things just to divert attention or create a boogeyman... though again, that is not to say that it did not happen.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that the ones who have defected wouldn't reveal if they had been bribed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that, but you are still making a big assumption.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter, as I'm not proposing that it should be included in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

In any case, we all agree this guy is unreliable. At least most of us. EkoGraf (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

March 15, 2011, an appropriate starting date for the war?

March 15, 2011 seems like an awkward starting date for the civil war. No battles occurred on that day, just massive protests. Now that this article is changed to Syrian civil war, not Syrian uprising, I think we should consider changing the starting date. The American Revolutionary War began with the battle of Battles of Lexington and Concord, not the first massive protest against the British government. The Finnish Civil War (a featured arttcle) began with its first battle, and everything that happened before is included in the "Background". With this in mind, a more appropriate starting date for the Syrian Civil War would be September 27, 2011, which was the start of the First Battle of Rastan, the first major confrontation between opposition fighters and the Syrian government. The protests and politics that happened before are not exactly part of the civil war. The vast majority of war articles begin with its first battles, not first protests. ---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not every civil war starts with a battle, there are a lot of them that start out as civil unrest before erupting into armed clashes. Besides, trying to cite September 27, 2011, the way you propose is a bit of OR. Stick to what the sources say, and most, if not all, of the sources cite the conflict as being a 17 month conflict, that is, starting in March 2011. EkoGraf (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Good graphic about Assad's inner circle found, can be used to update infobox and create chart.

Here is a clear organizational chart of Assad's inner circle [25], including his family members, religious affiliations of members information regrading defections and deaths. We can't use this image, but a chart like this can be easily made. It's also a good resource for updating the infobox. Hope this helps. -- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Internal?

"The Syrian civil war,[46][47][48][49] also referred to as the Syrian uprising,[50][51] is an ongoing internal"...

With so many foreign spies, volunteers, advisors, mercenaries, terrorists and active participation of USA, UK, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.88.251 (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Oversize

We have a serious problem in that the current size of 92850 bytes is more than 50% larger than the ideal maximum dictated by WP:SIZERULE, therefore I will be commanding further splittings, removals and deletions of content.Oxycut (talk) 07:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't oversized to begin with. Important articles are given exceptions to the byte limits. So long as they don't go over 200,000.

For example

Egyptian Revolution (2011-2012) (This one even goes to 220,000 bytes) Sopher99 (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Sopher, could you recheck your reversions list. I think 10-20k bytes are still missing. It's shorter than it was before all that stuff got removed, and I'm not sure what it was. Jeancey (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note, the size rule is JUST for prose, not infobox, picture captions, or references. Currently the article stands at around 10,000 words of prose, which is roughly 50kB in size. This is well under the 100kB guideline of probably a good time to split an article and SIGNIFICANTLY under the 200kB guideline for split the article now. The article isn't too long, its just about the perfect length. Jeancey (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Lede

The current lede says the following:

The Syrian Civil War, also referred to as the Syrian uprising...

Which I think should be changed to:

The Syrian Civil War, previously referred to as the Syrian uprising...

This will emphasize what most reliable sources are already doing, as the characterization of the events as a civil war has far eclipsed the reference to uprising.

Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 17:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Some, although a much smaller number, are still referring to it as an uprising, that's why we don't put previously. EkoGraf (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo, Jordan and Lebanon

The adding of Kosovo to the info-box on the rebel side is WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and the RT source provided certainly does not meet the criteria for evidence needed for this kind of claim. It is remarkable that you wish to add Kosovo when multiple high quality sources exist for adding Jordan and Lebanon to the info box as part of the conflict. حرية (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Germany

I am very concerned with the addition of "Germany" in the infobox under "economic & military support" to the Syrian rebels. The reference, Reuters, specifically writes "a newspaper said on Sunday, without citing sources." Who says this is true? On an article like this, we can NOT simply write this as a FACT. If someone can change it to somethin galong the lines of "according to a certain newspaper..." it'd be better, but it's current format isn't acceptable. --Activism1234 21:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The newspaper was "Bild".[26] FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That's awesome. If it's going to stay, it should be noted this is the report of a newspaper, and not a definite fact. --Activism1234 22:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Readers will know that when they read the source. EkoGraf (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thats just pure speculation und should be therefore removed. Bild is not a reliable source, especially not for something like that. Wikipedia is a not aplace for unsourced rumors by bad newspapers. StoneProphet (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Get real, most readers don't even know what a Wikipedia reference is. --Activism1234 22:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree using one source for information in the infobox is not good practice. The Bild is not considered the most reliable of German newspapers. I think if there are other sources besides the Bild it would be fine to include. Guest2625 (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Then I suggest to remove the 120 dead Hezbollah from the information box and keep 27 dead to the first source. Otherwise this is just double standards to claim a website to be "non-reliable". Yalibnan.com is a VERY anti-Hezbollah/opposition newspaper in Lebanon and it is well-known; their sources should be taken by a grain of salt when it comes to this conflict.Intouchabless (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well firstly, I'm not that involved here, so I didn't even know about that part of Hezbollah. Please don't accuse me of double standards. Secondly, yes, if only that source says it, then go ahead and remove it. My case though is you have a source that wrote something, and all other sources that reported it specifically mentioned it was a report from Bild, ie still only 1 source. --Activism1234 21:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this also. In the infobox you should tend toward the conservative and add what is generally agreed upon. So, if the 120 dead Hezbollah combatants is a single source claim it shouldn't be included. Guest2625 (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Activism1234. I never intended to blame you for something. My post was general and not directed against you. And of course, if several articles refers to a single source, it should be deemed as a single source. This was just a misunderstanding for our part. Have a nice day :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intouchabless (talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries about it. I'm not going to get involved here about removing Hezbollah, Germany, but I'm glad this has been brought to attention and hope it will be taken care of responsibly. --Activism1234 23:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We use pro-opposition and pro-government sources on an equal measure. We can not simply say this one is unreliable, this one is reliable. For the sake of neutrality, per Wikipedia policy, both sides points of view need to be presented. The term alleged was already added as a compromise solution, due to the claim coming from one side's point of view and not confirmed by the other. EkoGraf (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above, it is due time for the removal of those dubious Hezbollah casualties. FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be non-neutral, I repeat, all sides views of the conflict need to be presented. The word alleged had already been put in place as a compromise solution months ago. The removal would be a renegation on the compromise. EkoGraf (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Religious map

What is the source for this map? It looks like original research, and should really have some citations on the description page. Of course there are Alawites in Damascus and Aleppo, the map is incorrect. FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the timeline?

I used to visit the page to link myself to the timeline to see what was happening day by day. That link no longer in this page. What happened to it? I'm referring to: Timeline of the Syrian civil war.

Should this be re-added for clarity? It is very relavent to this topic. Jimerb (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The timeline was removed during this large edit here but this partial reversion did not fully restore it. I suggest interested editors carefully check what was lost during the edits around that time. -84user (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This looks like it was added back in by a contributor. All is good now. Jimerb (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy

Editors are urged to read Wikipedia:Splitting and linked pages before considering splitting parts of articles. Note it is important to follow the GFD license attribution requirements, for which see Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. -84user (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The map

The map is sourced, hwoever, it doesn't follow the sources. See the maps that were used as a sources. --Wüstenfuchs 13:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Which parts exactly do you mean? I have also left a message at the author's talk page [27], hopefully that will help too. Gryffindor (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I mean the Syrian coast, the Hatay Province and those part where the Christians make majority of the population. --Wüstenfuchs 18:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There are many inaccuracies, with "holes" not found in the original sources. We don't need original research. I also strongly object to including a map that only singles out Alawites (such a map is only appropriate on strictly Alawite related articles). Either show all sects, or show nothing. FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My point also. --Wüstenfuchs 22:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I refuse to make any more updates on File:Syria Ethnoreligious Map.png as I have already spent way too much time on it, and it seems like it will take me another 4-5 edits until Wustenfuchs accepts it. He wants me to make it exactly match his one source that he provided, even though I had 4 sources myself! I suggest that Wustenfuchs make his own version of the map and then update the file, because I personally have given up on this file. Actually, using Wustenfuch's POV, it would be much easier to just ask Columbia university for permission to use their file rather than go with my map lol.
But there remains another file, File:Alawite Distribution in the Levant.png, which I am more willing to polish as I only recently added it, and it is easier to deal with than all of Syria. Some have been complaining that it has "holes" and is "inaccurate" (lol). Well, it's not! I have posted a new image: File:Alawite distribution explained.png (only for clarification, please do not post it on WP). And the sources for it on: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Alawite_distribution_explained.png. Moester101 (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If you aren't going to make them match the sources exactly, then they will not be included in the articles. It is as simple as that. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Those maps are being spammed all over Wikipedia now, but they are blatant WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and even use Wikipedia articles as sources. They should not be used until they reflect published maps. FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

lol now my maps are "spam"? My map has tons of sources more than yours bud, and it's a lot more accurate. Yours shows all of northwestern Syria as Alawi, and it's NOT. Moester101 (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Texts (especially Wikipedia articles) cannot be used as sources for maps, only other maps. Otherwise it is just original synthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You keep focusing your argument on a few WP articles that I had to use as sources, while ignoring that most my sources were not WP articles. But for some reason you keep ignoring my arguement about how your map is completely blown out-of-proportion and inaccurate. Are you still trying to tell me that Reyhanli, Afrin, Qusair, and all those other places are completely Alawi as your map shows? Of course not. I fear that our arguements are starting to become personal rather than about objectively presenting accurate info to our fellow WP readers. I hope this does not continue for the readers' sake. They deserve to know the full and accurate truth. Moester101 (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere, text should not be used as source for such maps, only other published maps. Furthermore, there is no excuse at all for using Wikipedia as a source, such sources should be removed. Your map is simply unreliable. The map I made does not exaggerate anything it simply reflects the published maps. FunkMonk (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added more sources to the cities that I originally only provided WP articles for. As for the claim that your map reflects published maps, I completely agree with you on that, but it however does not mean that they are completely accurate. I also have published maps backing my claims (4-5 of them to be exact) and add to that all of the articles I also provided, you end up with an amazing demographical map showing Alawites' distribution in the Levant. bye Moester101 (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

FunkMonk, are you aware the amont of maps of this type in Wikipedia/Wikimedia that could be considered in your words "blatant WP:OR and WP:SYNTH"? And if a map is not "WP:OR and WP:SYNTH" then its most likely to be a copyright infringement, then it follows that the former option is more appropiate given that the map is scrutinized. To be honest I don't think "WP:OR and WP:SYNTH" are to be strictly followed when making this kind (ethnic, religion, language, war) of maps. Chiton (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a very sensitive issue, so I don't think we should just nonchalantly create and spam incorrect maps all over the place; either the maps are scrutinised, approved and agreed upon by editors, or they simply stay out. No "lol"ing and complaining that revisions are demanded will change this. FunkMonk (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Guys, please take it easy on User:Moester101. It is easier to criticise one's work and a different thing to actually try to improve something, so let's try to stay civil. I think the Alawite map is a great start. Moester101, are you able to expand on academic sources into your Alawite distribution map and have it reflect into your work to be more accurate and satisfy the concerns raised here? That would be great, thank you. Wüstenfuchs, you objected to the depiction of the Syrian coast, the Hatay Province and those parts where the Christians make majority of the population. Could you please also source that so we can figure out what the exact demographics are for the areas concerned? Gryffindor (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I would not be lying to you if I told you that I have already gave that map all that I've got. I've seriously spent a lot of time on it, and have presented all the sources I possibly can as I wrote previously, I quite simply cannot come-up with any more sources than I already have. You guys have to realize the situation I'm dealing with, considering how generalized and overlooked this topic is, not a lot of professional historians/demographers are talking about this. But I truly believe that the number of sources I have already provided should be good enough for this map (remember to see this and this and this). I have never seen any other demographics map with as many sources as mine that is still being aggressively contested as my map has been! As for Wustenfuchs, I have already updated the map to reflect his concern about the north-wester Latakia area by making it less green to reflect the presence of a christian majority area, and a Sunni minority area just above the christian area. Bottom line is this: I simply don't know how to make the image be any better, but I would love it if any critics downloaded the image and edited it and re-uploaded it to make it more accurate (as long as their changes are sourced). Till then, cheers! Moester101 (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Moester, I'm sorry you have lost your time, but text sources aren't good enough to make a map, if so, then it's an original research. But considering maps that were used as a source on the Syrian ethno-religious map, those maps were actually equal with the one I showed you. So, you know, one can't change the look of the ethnic map just to bypass the copyrights, it must be the same, otherwise you could add anything to the map. I would also advise you to find a Syrian map where its municipalities are shown then compare it to the Census, which was made, I believe, in 2004. The census is the best source whene used on a detailed map. For example, this [28] image. Croatian ethnic map is based on the 2001 Census and some certain user just painted the municipalites according to data from the census, simple as that. --Wüstenfuchs 08:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Syria is a little different than Croatia. The government does not include religion and ethnicity in its census b/c of the sensitivity of the issue, and add to that the fact that there's no map out there which shows all of Syria's municipalities like the Croatia map does. So the circumstances we're working with are a little different when it comes to Syria. Nevertheless, I would love it if you took my image File:Syria Ethnoreligious Map.png and improved it in the way that you think will make it accurate. I simply use Microsoft paint to adjust it, I'm pretty sure you can do that too. Once you've edited the image you can update it by going to the file's wikimedia page which I'm sure you already know how to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moester101 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The censorship section

Am I correct in thinking that a paragraph from our article about censorship of journalism, etc. is almost exactly copied from the relevant part of this page? It's listed as the source here, but this is hardly even paraphrasing, I think. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 15:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Does it violate the copyrights? If not, then it's just fine. --Wüstenfuchs 16:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The site in question has this at the bottom of the page: "Web site content © CPJ. All rights reserved. Articles may be reproduced only with permission." Their FAQ page also states that you can email them for permission to reproduce their articles in print or online. Whether or not this applies to small parts of articles (which have been slightly modified, to boot), I couldn't say. dalahäst ^{(let's talk!)} 21:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This report shows a case of close paraphrasing. It needs to be fixed ASAP. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

International court of justice

In this civil war in Syria the human rights and the Geneva Conventions are violated every day by both parts. This civil war is actually a massacre from both sides. The article does not make clear if these war crimes are subject to the international court of justice, such as in the case of the civil war in former Yugoslavia 688dim (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It does state, in the bottom paragraph of the lead, that international humanitarian law applies. I think that would make them liable for prosecution at the ICC. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Image in infobox

I believe that the File:Syrian Civil War.svg should be put into the infobox for two reasons. 1: An image of protesters gives the idea of the conflict being a protest or a minor uprising. Showing a map would show different areas of control. 2: It is similar to User:Rafy's map with Libya. This just a suggestion, just to bring up the idea now that is has 62 cities and towns on it. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 18:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Libya became a civil war after three weeks. Syria became a civil war after 16 months. For the vast majority it was an uprising. The maps belong in the civil war subsection. Sopher99 (talk) 09:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. The crowd picture is in the infobox for the Uprising article. We should have something here which is actually from the period of war.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxycut (talk • contribs) 05:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Or we could put it in the war subsection, like it already is. Sopher99 (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

And a quick check on the page history shows me that your are

The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets)

, a user who frequently vandalizes this page. Sopher99 (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not Oxycut, and I do agree to keep it in the war section (at least until November 15, 2013, if the war continues until then or for obvious reasons, a consensus to change it.) There also is no Uprising page, as there was no consensus to move anything. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 14:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As a sidenote, the user with the unsigned comment is Oxycut. The one that goes "I agree with this proposal. The crowd picture is..." Sopher99 (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for assuming that was meant toward me! –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 23:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sopher99. --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Spesh531. --Wüstenfuchs 20:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

We have an article on the uprising which ceased 14 July 2012. The crowd picture is from that event and that period. The existence of civil war was recognised from 15 July 2012, by the Red Cross. This article's for sake of covering events from that time onward, although it is permissible to maintain a background section which is not unduly large for the sake of outlining how things got to the scenario of armed hostility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxycut (talk • contribs) 16:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

We do not have a Syrian Uprising stop trying to push it without a consensus from the community. PLEASE sign your posts, User:Oxycut, thank you. The article includes the protests, uprisings, and the war. Its the same way with the Libyan civil war. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 23:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Many civil wars throughout history didn't start out as wars, but rather civil unrest. But we all lump each conflict into unified articles and don't separate the starting events from the later escalating war. So there is no need for a separate protests or uprising articles. EkoGraf (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

We need to better emulate the image that was used for the Libyan civil war, since it presents rebel-held areas much more better than simple geometric shapes. Never the less, I agree with Spesh531. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

infobox

This is from todays Guardian: "The rebel forces' inability to receive reinforcements is not helping them against a standing military that continues to outman and outgun them. Nor are new weapons coming their way, after the flush of guns and bombs taken in raids on regime depots abandoned by fleeing forces in late-July.

A trickle of assault weapons and ammunition comes over the border from Turkey, with the help of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkish intelligence officials. However, the heavy weapons that rebel leaders have been calling for, especially anti-aircraft guns, have not arrived." And Russia, consistent and straight down the line, pro-Assad, is not there. is this state of affairs represented in the misinfobox? 92.13.84.167 (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

We have a couple of hard-core Assad supporters on this page who are holding up such changes. Unfortunately, the cadre of POV-pushers on the other side is giving them justification to exert tight editorial control over the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The pot is again calling the kettle black! You are one of many intrusive pov-pushers to have worked on this article. Meowy 20:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Impact section created for this article, needs expansion

I have created an "Impact" section for this article, which you can find near the end. So far it includes, "crime wave", "refugees", "effects on Lebanon", and "Deaths". However, each of these subsections are rather short, and needs expansion. If you can help out, that would be great.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Azeri?

Who created the Azeri section and why? There aren't even any sources. VossPL (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2012‎ (UTC)

Defectors are bribed

I have already pointed this out, but here is a more reliable source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/cash-the-lure-for-syrian-defectors/story-fnb64oi6-1226455233442 FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, since you've found a reliable link, it should probably be included somewhere in the article, specifically the section where it discusses the international response to the crisis. Kurtis (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

that is TTTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO INSANE FOR SOMEONE TO BELIEVE THAT . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 02:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If it can be verified using reliable sources, then it certainly can be mentioned in this article as a tactic Syria's opponents have been using to destabilize the regime and facilitate its eventual downfall. Kurtis (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Bribery is used frequently in the west as well. I'd assume it is less "INSANE" than blowing oneself up to kill others. FunkMonk (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with both Kurtis and FunkMonk. EkoGraf (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

even if it is true that one report only,and other newspapers never said stick with the fact,don't stick with weak reports. Alhanuty (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

1 - This article requires one to log in to the site to see the source.

2 - They are not talking about bribes, they are talking about Saudi Arabia planning on paying their wages. This was already announced to the entire world and has long been known. Syrian officials would be more willing to defect if they know their wages won't be lost. Many officials don't defect because they have to feed their families. Your fantasy that you exposed some sort of conspiracy is complete untrue. Sopher99 (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Great article and finally a RS supporting the theory. We should include this to the article. --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

agree with Sopher99,anyway this only on article and non-reliable . Alhanuty (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable by whom? The Australian is the biggest-selling national newspaper in Australia. Check out its Wikipedia page. That more than qualifies it on the reliability-scale. If you were of the opinion that its unreliable due to it stating something that can be conceived by some in some way as being anti-rebel than you should rethink your own neutrality. Actually, per your various comments around Wikipedia it can be seen you can't keep a neutral stand point, and have been a constant pro-rebel pov-pusher, by adding information, in 90 percent of the cases, without sources. EkoGraf (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't kid yourselves, this is certainly not the first time bribery has been reported, another example in English: http://rt.com/news/syria-ambassador-qatar-defection-421/ FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this should be included in the article. Claiming that they're not bribes, but simply the payment of the officials' wages by another state, is preposterous. We're talking about large sums of money, significantly more than would be needed to "feed their families". On top of that, reliable sources describe them as bribes. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup. EkoGraf (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This Is Only One Article EcoGrak,this cannot be confirmed except if other sources say that too,why didn't any other report it,such as the gurdian,or new york times and other big newspapers,this defiantly proves that this article is very unreliable .Alhanuty (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It has been reported elsewhere. And the Guardian and NY Times? Practically cheerleaders for the Salafist "rebels". FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, other sources have also been provided, so please refrain from pov-pushing Alhanuty. EkoGraf (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue with the reliability of this source per se (though I do take issue with the POV pushing going on from both sides in this thread...). I am concerned that 1) I cannot access the article to read the language concerning the cash payments, and 2) I'm seeing a lot of judgement laden language flying around in this discussion. I would ask that someone provide a chunk of the text for review if possible. If the source does not call them bribes, then we should not. If it does, but in context, we must also put that in context. It's certainly worth noting, but not in a manner that pushes one's own POV on this. And we cannot say "well, by my reasoning large amounts of cash paid are the saem thing as bribes." Wikipedia is not a source for our personal reasoning, but for the specific adherence solely to RS. We cannot extrapolate, spin, or play semantics with RS content. Until some source is available or demonstrated here that refers to them as bribes, I'd have to say I'm not comfortable with its inclusion.Jbower47 (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ecograf give me the sources NOW,this Australian source isn't enough to judge ,by the way i am neutral and i write the fact from the sources but goverment claims are mostly untrue and pro government and propaganda and some countries as china and russia propagandise and control all media sources and make sure the that their media is favourable to the government, so chinese ,russian,iranian,and other governments who support the syrian regime are unreliable .Alhanuty (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ask FunkMonk for the other sources. And please...by your own comments where each time a source says something possibly anti-rebel you yell nooooo its not true it can be seen you are not neutral. Are you going to tell me the Australian government is also controlling that Australian newspaper? And if you are of the opinion that anybody who supports the Syrian government can't report reliable news than I would have to say to you that anybody who supports the rebels can't report reliable news (US, UK, France, Turkey, etc). Example...who do you think controls and finances al-Jazeera? Hint - Saudi Arabia. Let's not be naive here. EkoGraf (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

i am not saying that the Australian government is also controlling that Australian newspaper i am saying bring other sources confirming it . it doesn't need to be from countries that support rebels,but it can't be from countries who support the syrian regime . Alhanuty (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)