Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 35

War In West Asia
	Part of Arab Spring and Iraq War
	; As of June 2014.
Date	15th March 2011 - Present
Location	Syria and Iraq
Status	Ongoing
Belligerents
Commanders and leaders
Strength
Casualties and losses
	Total > 200,000

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 30

←

→

Correcting lead section Syrian Civil War

My proposed begin of the lead section stands below under point 7 boldly printed, but this is my motivation:

25April2011, the Wikipedia community decided to re-title this article (then called ‘2011 Syrian protests’) to: ‘2011 Syrian uprising’. We correctly then concluded, following outside sources, to consider Syria to be in a state of ‘(civil) uprising’; but that did not automatically imply that all protests in Syria since 26Jan2011, as then listed in the article, were to be considered part of that ‘uprising’. We should have realized that after this re-titling, the article covered: (a) protests since 28Jan2011 (Akleh poured gasoline and set fire: see Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January–April 2011)); and: (b) uprising since March2011 (The New York Times and Los Angeles Times of 25April2011 consider the ´uprising´ to have started between 15 and 21 March2011).
Instead, one editor on 25April2011,21:23 incorrectly and without motivation simply replaced the word ‘protest’ in the article by the word ‘uprising’, by which the article incorrectly asserted that the ‘uprising’ began on 26Jan2011.
Between 19June2011 and 11Dec2011, the lead section correctly explained that the Syrian ‘protests’ (26Jan2011) and ‘uprising’ (15March) had different starting dates (see the correct dates, above under point 1). 11dec2011, without motivation this clear distiction was removed. 22July2012, the lead (and the infobox) said that “The Syrian uprising … began on 15 March” and ignored the fact that this article also covers ‘protests’ starting 28Jan2011.
On 23July2012, a similar mistake as on 25April2011 (see above under point 1) was made. Wikipedia decided to ‘move’ (= re-title) the article to ‘Syrian Civil War’, after agreeing that Syria was then in a state of civil war. Again, that did not automatically mean that all ‘uprising’ in Syria since March2011, nor all protests since 28Jan2011, were to be considered ‘civil war’. We, again, should have realized that after this re-titling the article now covered: (a) protests since 28Jan2011; (b) uprising since mid-March2011; (c) civil war since no-agreed-upon-date, in or before July2012; and have made that clear in a re-written lead section.
For example like this:
[A] The Syrian Civil War is a civil war now taking place in Syria.
[B] Small protests in Syria began on 28 January 2011. [see above under point 1]
[C] Mass protests against the government erupted on 15 March 2011 in Damascus and Aleppo and in following days spread to more cities; that week is considered the beginning of the Syrian uprising. [See Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January–April 2011).]
[D] By July 2012, with 16,000 people killed, the International Committee of the Red Cross judged the fighting in Syria so widespread that the conflict should be considered a civil war. [See section 2.6 ‘Battles of Damascus and Aleppo (July–October 2012)’.]
Instead, on 13July2012 an editor unmotivatedly had already changed: “The Syrian uprising… began on 15 March 2011” into: “The Syrian uprising (also referred to as the Syrian civil war) … began on 15 March 2011”, implying the terms ‘Syrian uprising’ and ‘Syrian civil war’ to be equivalent, and (therefore) the civil war to have started 15March2011, which I consider incorrect. This incorrect assertion was then confirmed on 23July2012,11:04: “The Syrian Civil War, initially referred to as the Syrian uprising, (…) began on 15 March 2011…” which suggests or states the same equivalency between ‘civil war’ and ‘uprising’ and is just as incorrect. The same goes for “the S.c.w., also called the Syrian uprising” (July2013) and “the Syrian civil war, also known as Syrian uprising” (28Aug2013,17:06).
If we agree that the first tasks of the lead section are: (1) to define the title ‘Syrian Civil War’, and (2) to explain the transitions between the Syrian ‘protests’, ‘uprising’ and ‘civil war’; and that these two tasks are fulfilled correctly with above given new sentences [A, B, C and D]; then we’ll have to evaluate the present (‘old’) seven first sentences in the lead section which all to some extend seem to be either incorrect or unsourced or vague or misleading. To ease that discussion, I’ve numbered those sentences (a), (b) etc., and split them up in parts, like (a1), (a2), …, (c1), (c2), (c3), etc.:
(a1) The Syrian Civil War,
(a2) also known as the Syrian Uprising,
(a3) is an armed conflict in Syria
(a4) between forces loyal to the Ba'ath government, which took power in 1963, and those seeking to oust it.
(b1) The unrest started as a civil uprising
(b2) that were part of the wider North African and Middle Eastern protest movements known as the Arab Spring
(b3) with Syrian protesters at first demanding democratic and economic reform within the framework of the existing government.
(c1) The uprising
(c2) began with protests in March 2011
(c3) in Daraa, but
(c4) a violent response from the government
(c5) and subsequent clashes
(c6) left dozens of opposition protesters and at least seven policemen dead.
(d) By April, the protests were nationwide.
(e1) In April 2011, the Syrian Army was deployed to quell the uprising
(e2) and soldiers fired on demonstrators across the country.
(f1) After months of military sieges,
(f2) the protests developed into an armed rebellion.
(g1) The conflict is asymmetrical,
(g2) with clashes taking place in many towns and cities across the country.
→(Don’t take my comments personal:)←
● (a2) is incorrect, as I’ve argued above under point 6. (If this part was meant to remind us that we spoke of some ‘uprising’ before we spoke of some ‘civil war’ in Syria, that reminding and explaining can be correctly done by the newly proposed sentences [C] and [D] (above under point 5).)
● (a3) Civil war is armed conflict but it's more than that. For people who don't know the meaning of the term we've now Wikilinked to our article ‘Civil war’ in the newly proposed sentence [A].
● (a4) is a personal, unmotivated, opinion (of 8Sep2012,13:01). If we nowadays see ‘rebels’ fighting each other in Syria and we present those events in this article, this ‘civil war’ article apparently includes more than the conflict between Assad and his opponents. We don’t need to name all participants of this war in the lead section, the lead can confine itself to shortly summarize what has really happened; the reader can find in specific sections 1 (Background) and 2 (Course of war) of the article – which I admit can use improvement – details on battling parties, their causes or goals, etc.
● (b1) Because of the definite article ‘the’, in “the unrest”, this ‘unrest’ must grammatically refer to some unrest already mentioned in the text; that can be only the ‘armed Civil War’ in the preceding sentence. ‘Civil uprising’ started mid-March2011 (see above under point 1) but there is no reason to equal ‘civil war’ to ‘civil uprising’ and say or suggest that ‘civil war’ started also in March2011 (see above under point 6). Therefore, sentence (b) is incorrect. (What we can say, and was perhaps meant by some editor, is that uprising started in March (see above, under point 1, and under point 5 the proposed new sentence [C]).)
(b2) ‘…part of…Arab Spring…’ is unsourced and seems a personal interpretation of some Wiki editor (see earlier discussion in section ‘...response to Arab Spring... ?’).
● (b3) ‘at first’ is too vague; ‘within the framework…’ is unsourced personal opinion. We may wish to say, more precise, in new sentence [C2] (see below): “Until 7 April, the protesters’ demands were democratic reforms; after 8 April, the emphasis shifted towards calls for overthrowing the Assad government” (see Timeline March–April2011).
● (c1+c2) 'The uprising' means here grammatically 'the civil war' (see explanation of line (b1)). It’s incorrect to say the 'civil war' started in March2011: protests started in January, got more massive in March2011 and were therefore considered ‘uprising’ from the week 15–21 March2011 onwards. That are essential facts in this lead, as I've argued above under point 1, and formulated in my proposed new sentences [B] and [C] above under point 5.
● (c3) Protests January did not start in Daraa, uprising March also didn’t start in Daraa (see new sentences [B] and [C] above).
● (c6+c4+c5) It can be tempting to put every interesting detail in the lead section. Preferable from encyclopedic point of view is, to make a summarizing lead section of 300–400 words, a (clearer,) more detailed section 2.1 of also 300–400 words, et cetera. Thus, we can shortly say in a new sentence [C1] (see below) in the lead after sentence [C]: “Deadly violence of the government started 18 March, of the protesters on 20 March, within ten days 100 people were killed” (see Timeline March2011), and place those details of dozens of protesters and seven police dead by 20March in section 2.1 (see next Discussion section).
● (d) Unsourced and vague (‘nationwide’, ‘April’). ‘New’ sentence [C] says already that mass protests spread around 15–20 March to more cities. More details on protests’ spreading can be placed in section 2.1 (see next Discussion section).
● (e1) Unsourced personal interpretation. What we do know (see Timeline April and Timeline May 2011), and might wish to say in the lead, is: [C3] (see below): “25 April, the Syrian army started deadly attacks on towns.”
● (e2) Seeing that ‘new’ sentences C1, C2 and C4 already mention the killing from government forces in March–April, this part is now redundant and certainly too vague.
● (f1) 'Sieges' is misleading term for military attacks, see newly proposed sentence [C3] below.
● (f2) Vague, unsourced. (Footnote 73, Jakarta Post, is dead, by the way.) What we might wish to say, based and precise, in new sentences [C4+C5] (see below), is: “Significant armed rebellion began early June in Jisr al-Shughur.^[1] End of July 2011, defecting Syrian officers formed the Free Syrian Army aiming “to bring this regime down” with united opposition forces.^[2]^[3]”.
●(g1) Unsourced personal interpretation.
● (g2) Newly proposed sentences [C1 and C2] give already specific hints at clashes; this, too vague (when are those ‘clashes’? what is meant with ‘clash’? what is ‘many’?) part gives no precise extra information.
►► Above given reasoning results in the following new first nine sentences of the lead, covering 2011–2012:
[A] The Syrian Civil War is a civil war now taking place in Syria.
[B] Small protests in Syria began on 28 January 2011.
[C] Mass protests against the government erupted on 15 March 2011 in Damascus and Aleppo and in following days spread to more cities; that week is considered the beginning of the Syrian uprising.
[C1] Deadly violence of the government started 18 March, of the protesters on 20 March, within ten days 100 people were killed.
[C2] Until 7 April, the protesters’ demands were democratic reforms; after 8 April, the emphasis shifted towards calls for overthrowing the Assad government.
[C3] 25 April 2011, the Syrian army started deadly attacks on towns.
[C4+C5] Significant armed rebellion began early June in Jisr al-Shughur. End of July 2011, defecting Syrian officers formed the Free Syrian Army aiming “to bring this regime down” with united opposition forces.
[D] By July 2012, with 16,000 people killed, the International Committee of the Red Cross judged the fighting in Syria so widespread that the conflict should be considered a civil war.
Because every word changed in the lead section can strongly influence the quality of the whole lead section, we should agree that all (further) edits in the lead section of article ‘Syrian Civil War’ should be discussed and motivated on the Talk page.
If we assume the infobox “Syrian uprising” on top of the article to have been correct on 22Jul2012, changing it on 23Jul2012,11:04 into box “Syrian Civil War…[starting:] Date 15 March 2011…” was just as incorrect as that same assertion in the lead section (see above under point 6). The simplest way to correct the infobox is by renaming it into box “Syrian uprising and civil war”.
Around 25July2012, lead sections of our ‘Timeline’-articles (all listed now in ‘Timeline of the Syrian Civil War’) were being edited to say things like: “…a timeline of the Syrian civil war from January to April 2011,…”, and their titles changed like: ‘Timeline of the Syrian civil war (January–April 2011)’. Ofcourse, these were mistakes similar to those, discussed above under point 4. As long as we haven’t agreed in Wikipedia when the ‘Syrian Civil War’ started, we should conclude that no valid motivation has ever been given for renaming those Timeline-articles up to July2012 as to suggest the Civil War was then already running. For now, we can only say (see above under point 4) that ‘protests’ had started in January2011, ‘uprising’ in March2011, and ‘civil war’ in or before July2012. Consequently, I suggest to rename the first Timeline-article clearly in: ‘Timeline of the Syrian protests and uprising (January–April 2011)’, the next three in: ‘…Syrian uprising…’, the next one in “…uprising and civil war…” (and leave only the Timelines of September–December2012 and later unaltered as “…civil war…”); and ofcourse adapt their lead sections accordingly. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

TL;DR... FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Tl and dr are not in my dictionary. Can we speak normal English on this Wikipedia? What’s the matter with Mr FutureTrillionaire (‘Christian’, he judged necessary to impart to us on his user page): is he suddenly too tired or too lazy to write polite, understandable sentences or messages here? B… off then, pr kq cct. Corriebertus (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please, avoid personal attacks and assume good faith. TL;DR is a very common phrase on the internet.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

TL;DR as well. Anyway, the first paragraph is now written in poor English and has no references to sources, which makes it much worse than the previous version. --Emesik (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for translating. FT wanted to inform us that my posting of 9 June was ‘too long’ and that he ‘did not read’ it. The ‘TL’ I take as a personal attack because FT does not respect my right to express an opinion on a Talk page. He has no right to judge another person’s posted opinion as being ‘too long’. ‘Did not read’: who wants to know? Are we going to write ‘DR’ on all postings in Wikipedia that we did not read?? @ Emesik: he regrets the first paragraph (does he mean of the lead section or of sect.2.1?) to have no references to sources. Perhaps he is mistaken. Sect.2.1 refers to a main article that will provide references to sources. In the ideal situation, the whole sect.2.1 would contain not one direct reference to a source. The same goes for lead section: it only summarizes what is said in lower sections such as 2.1, 2.2 et cetera, and ideally the whole lead section would need very litle or no direct references to sources; therefore, having no references doesn’t make lead or §2.1 worse than a previous version with more references to sources.

Em. also considers the first part of lead section to be written in poor English (and therefore worse than previous version?). ‘Poor’ has many meanings; in some of those meanings I might perhaps agree with Em, in other meanings I would perhaps disagree with his observation. Can he make clear in what sense he means that language to be poor? Anyway, apart from my choice of words which can ofcourse be criticised or corrected, I’ve argued in my discussion postings of 9 June why I consider the content my version correcter, better motivated and sourced, et cetera. Of course, all my arguing of 9 June stands open for discussion. (P.S.: I just now notice that FT placed his posting above an earlier posting of Emesik. Can he please put his later posting simply on the bottom of a discussion section and nowhere else? Would seem much preferable to me.) --Corriebertus (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is bad practice to eliminate references from the lede just "because they are included later". It makes the important, opening sentences harder to verify to other users and easier to be challenged by other editors.

By "poor English" I mean that the sentences look somewhat awkward and less informative that they did before. English is not my first language and I'm far from claiming that I'm an expert, but phrasing like "Deadly violence of the government started 18 March, of the protesters on 20 March." just don't sound well. Also there are repetitions of words deadly and protests which could be easily avoided.

To sum it up, I prefer to work on the previous version in order to improve it, over scrapping it all and replacing by yours.--Emesik (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I said things here on 12 June that I should not have said, and I apologize for them. On the other hand: what options had I left? I had discovered what I considered mistakes in lead section, reaching back to 25April2011. While investigating, I noticed that hundreds, perhaps thousands, edits had been made in lead section but almost NEVER motivated in their edit summary. Phrases seemed to have been introduced dozens of times, removed again dozens of times, without anyone daring to discuss the disagreement and sort it out for good.

So I thought, to make a change: I will scrupulously motivate my edit on lead section, and ask the colleagues to do the same. After 2½ days, FT wrote behind my edit justification: “TL;DR…”. We all know that it is the most rude and insulting thing to do, to start talking in some unknown or secret language in the presence of people that don’t understand it, and that’s what FT did. Moreover, he demonstratively refused to answer to my discussion in normal and polite English. What options had I left, being so collegially insulted and despised? I asked if FT might have been tired or lazy. After translation given as ‘too long, didn’t read’, FT appeared to have been rude also in another way: openly refusing to read polite collegial pertinent discussion over this page by disqualifying my posting as ‘too long’ (which explains why he had not even dared to say it out loud: “too long!”). Believe me, if I could have said it in less words I would gladly have done so, but this was the minimum to really explain what had gone wrong in that lead.

After that bad, uncivilized (sorry), example set by FT, colleague Emesik ofcourse assumed that it is accepted in Wikipedia to NOT read people’s motivations of edits but object against them all the same. 13+12 June, he dislikes some references being eliminated from the lead but gives no example. Let’s look at the first ref in the old version of 8June: note 72, ‘bomber targets…’, Bangkok Post, 15June2012, writing: “…as the uprising against President Assad enters its 16th month…”. Apparently, this ref should prove that the SCW “is also known as the Syrian Uprising”. However, it does not at all prove that, as I’ve carefully argued on 9June here in my discussion (under point 6). Sorry, but if editors like our esteemed Emesik simply refuse to read explanations of colleagues, that will be the end of Wikipedia.

Then Emesik considers some sentences ‘awkward’. He can be right, just like he I’m no native speaker. I’ve concentrated on the content of the old version which many times was obviously incorrect/vague/unsourced (as I argued 9June, read that!). Many many phrases have been tried, and changed, perhaps hundreds of times, to depict the violence starting and escalating in March2011; the latest version (8June) was simply incorrect and vague and overly detailed (read my post 9June!). My new phrasing is indeed utterly simple, but it is the bare correct essence, put as shortly as possible (longer version to be found in section 2.1). The word ‘deadly’ is repeated once, the only synonym I know is ‘lethal’ which I consider rather undesirably posh and aloof here—the terrible truth is that people are still dying by the numbers in Syria. Don’t blame the messenger. Emesik ‘prefers to work on the previous version’ and bluntly ignore/abort my edit of 9June2014 without reading and reacting on my motivations for it and without much arguments to do so -- except the provocative 'argument' of FutureTrillionaire that it is all right in Wikipedia to simply ignore and despise edits and arguments of other editors if you feel like ignoring them. That would be completely off bounds as long as Wikipedia tries to be a respectable cooperative project. Emesik is welcome though to make improvements on the present version in Wikipedia; I very much urge him (and others) to motivate any possible edits (as I asked 9June, point 8). --Corriebertus (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Corriebertus, please understand that the previous version of the opening paragraph did not emerge out of the blue. It was a result of months of collaboration, discussion and arguments between numerous editors. You just threw it overboard with all the references, which is very bold move as for editing the lede of a very controversial article. I would be happy with that if you had contributed a version much better than the previous one. You did not — and this is my own, personal opinion. --Emesik (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Corriebertus' lede is written in very choppy English. The lede is not a timeline, it is an introduction to the subject.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I made an edit on page SCW, with a (rather longish) motivation on Talk page. You two refuse to read that motivation, which seems to me totally not-Wiki, and unpolite. Only saying that my motivation was “too long” (after which standards?) is a personal attack, in the sense that it denies my basic right (vital for Wikipedia !) to motivate an edit in my own words. In short: you violate basic politeness and Wiki philosophy and guidelines. That makes it rather impossible to further ‘discuss’ with you here. I’m not going to go on with repeating myself, and contradicting things like: ‘…did not come out of the blue…’ which is rather an absurd thing to say, considering the amount of work I’ve done myself to show that indeed the lead section did not come out of the blue. The point I’ve been making some five times now, is that the lead contained (sometimes rather old) mistakes. It’s rather a nonsensical, insulting to say that I “just threw things overboard”: I’ve scrupulously motivated what and why I’ve removed from the article. As for FT: where did I say the lead is a Timeline? (And please stop writing ‘lede’ if your English is supposed to be superior to mine.) If you want a better lead, then make it, and please have the courtesy (and cooperative Wiki-ness) to motivate your possible edit. --Corriebertus (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I've never said that my English is superior to yours. I just say that the previous version of the lede was better. First of all, I recommend you to bring back the references (WP:LEADCITE) --Emesik (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Emesik: my remark about superior (= better) English was not directed at you, but at FT who commented lastly on my language as 'choppy' but himself (incorrectly) writes 'lede' where he probably means 'lead'. @FT and everyone: I was rather angry about behavior of FT on 12 June. If he took part of my answer on 12 June (which I strike now) as an attack, I apologize for it. @Emesik and FutureTrillionaire (FT): I've tried to politely say to you and everyone that discussing here with Emesik and with FT is kind of useless as long as they don't want to read my posting of 9 June where I wrote about mistakes in the lead (which they perhaps don't want to know about and therefore don't want to read about?). @Emesik: As I said before: I think a lead section usually doesn’t need many direct source references, if any. The present opening sentence [A] is a simple definition. Sentence [B] is easily to be checked in section 2.1; etc. The idea of a lead section is not to repeat and source again what is said lower in the article, but to shortly summarize the lower sections; in that case, direct references are unnecessary and disadvisable, or even forbidden, to my opinion. Any subject in Wikipedia is only one time presented in full detail, and that is the (only) place where those facts ought to be sourced/referenced. Other places in Wikipedia should then only direct to that place where that subject is treated in full length (like for example a lead section directs to the lower sections of its own article). If you agree with the text of the present lead, I don't know which references you would like to add to it, but go ahead and add references, and motivate that. If someone then strongly disagrees he might wish to remove some of them, again, ofcourse. --Corriebertus (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked FutureTrillionaire here (16June) and on his Talk page (16June) after which standards my explanatory posting of 9June here was ‘too long’. He refuses to answer, which proves that his “TL;DR... ” here on 12June was only a trick to prevent serious and polite constructive discussion to arise in this section. FT saw my edit 9June in the article SCW which did not please him, and therefore refused to read my motivation for it, because if you don’t read it it doesn’t exist (like ostrichs bury their heads in the sand when unpleasantness approaches), and then on 15June,16:30 reverted the unpleasing edit in the lead section of SCW. Behaviour probably at discord with the Wikipedia philosophy of good, serious, reasonable cooperation. Corriebertus (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

And ofcourse, I also asked Emesik here (16June), after which standards my posting of 9June might have been “too long”, and also he/she refuses to answer that. Also Emesik then apparently seems to simply not want to read motivations of edits that are displeasing to him/her, and accusingly call ‘too long’ what he/she simply doesn’t like. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

No fantasies in the article please

I believe visitors come to Wikipedia’s page 'Syrian Civil War' to read facts about that war, not personal fantasies or interpretations of one or two Wiki contributors. The edit in the lead section of 15June2014,16:30, was unmotivated, and is therefore now reverted. Read in my explanation on 9June2014 what is wrong with assertions reintroduced in the lead section on 15June2014 such as: known as… , armed conflict…, between forces… , started as civil uprisings… , Arab Spring… , within the framework… , began in March… , in Daraa… , April nationwide… , quell… , fired on… , sieges… , developed into… , asymmetrical…, clashes in many towns… --Corriebertus (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

These are not fantasies but a well-sourced text which you want to throw away. You are welcome to edit the article, but please provide references. Any unsourced material in such controversial article will be challenged and removed sooner or later, no matter how accurate it is.

To put it simply: If you replace sourced text with unsourced one, I will personally revert it. --Emesik (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Mr/Mrs Emesik, I’ve refuted and disproven what you bring forward again today (‘throw away’, ‘references’, ‘fantasies’, ‘unsourced’), already once or several times, in section Talk:Syrian Civil War#Correcting lead section Syrian Civil War (9–30June), where I’ve also announced (16June) that ‘discussing’ with you on these matters seems useless because you simply don’t listen to arguments that don’t please you and even openly and shamelessly refuse to read contributions that you expect to be probably displeasing you. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't get it. Back your edits with references. Second paragraph of WP:V will explain it to you. --Emesik (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I agree that the lede requires many changes, but unsourced text is useless as a base of anything better. --Emesik (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Israel support the Insurgents

Sources from 22/6/14 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/israel-air-strikes-syria http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.600486

However since January 2013 Israel launch around more than 30 military attacks against Syrian Army position they never attack the Insurgents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 02:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I read through the guardian report - it said; The Israeli military has carried out air strikes on targets inside Syria, including a military headquarters, in response to a cross-border attack that left an Israeli teenager dead.

In all, Israel said it struck nine military targets inside Syria, and "direct hits were confirmed."

The targets were located near the site of Sunday's violence in the Golan Heights and included a regional military command centre and unspecified "launching positions." There was no immediate response from Syria.

In Sunday's attack, an Israeli civilian vehicle was struck by forces in Syria as it drove in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights.

'A teenage boy was killed and two other people were wounded in the first deadly incident along the volatile Israeli-Syrian front since Syria's civil war erupted more than three years ago.

'Israel has carefully monitored the fighting in Syria, but has generally kept its distance and avoided taking sides.'

'On several occasions, mortar shells and other types of fire have landed on the Israeli side of the de facto border, drawing limited Israeli reprisals.'

'Israel is also believed to have carried out several airstrikes on arms shipments it believed to be headed from Syria to Hezbollah militants in neighbouring Lebanon.'

'It was not immediately clear whether Syrian troops or one of the many rebel groups battling the government carried out Sunday's deadly attack in the Golan. Lerner said it was clear that the attack was intentional.'

'Israel has repeatedly said it holds the Syrian government responsible for any attacks emanating from its territory, regardless of who actually carries them out.'

'Israeli police identified the boy as Mohammed Karaka, 14, of the Arab village of Arraba in northern Israel. Local media said he had accompanied his father, the truck driver, to work.'

Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he spoke to the boy's father and sent his condolences. "Our enemies don't differentiate between Jews and non-Jews, adults and children," he told an international gathering of Jewish journalists.

'Netanyahu said in conflicts like Syria, where al-Qaida-inspired extremists are battling Iranian-backed Syrian troops, there is no good choice and it is best for Israel to sit back and let its enemies weaken each other.' the article seems not to say 'Israel supports the insurgents' as you headline this section. though I don't suppose what RS actually say interests you very much. Sayerslle (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Israel just killed ten Syrian soldiers. That's pretty significant. http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/136147-at-least-10-syrian-soldiers-killed-in-israeli-raids FunkMonk (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- well assad will have to respond if its 'pretty significant' I guess. it will give the Palestinians of yarmouk and the citizens of Aleppo a break if he thinks about some other priorities I suppose. - twitter latest -

The 47th @THE_47th · 3h

7 or 8 Israeli strikes ago Assad ws on Manar TV & said: "I confirm 2 u, any new Israeli strike on Syria will be met w/immediate retaliation"

Sayerslle (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

- - It will give ISIL an opportunity to take over half of Syria if the Syrian army gets dragged into war with Israel. Nice little Salafi-Zionist collaboration. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

may all your delusions come true. best stick to RS in the meantime and not let prophetic fantasies dictate content imo - don't forget twitter to stay abreast of what is happening in the present rather than apocalyptic future fantasies[1] and on assad salafist collaboration - he's a machiavel, you know it[[Sayerslle (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Twitter is just a rumour mill. You'd believe Assad lives on a Russian ship and that Maher Assad is a cripple from reading too much there. By the way, a brutal dictator is killing his own people in Ukraine, Egypt, and Yemen, why don't you go and have some arbitrary fun on those articles? Oh, I forgot, those are American allies. Not sexy enough? FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@funkmok I don't believe assad lives ona Russian ship - you are again not AGF are you , - 'have some arbitrary fun'?? - I do believe you are protected by admins and are left free to insult people and never AGF , why I don't know, - a sfor your insane remarks on Ukraine - 'One Igor Girkin (aka Strelkov) heads up the Donbass People’s Militia. In an interview with Pravda, Girkin revealed that his troops had experience fighting for the Russian armed forces in Chechnya, Central Asia, Yugoslavia, Iraq and even Syria.' - you think putinRussia is the saintly savior of the world? omg. Sayerslle (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Lol, I'm "protected by admins"? I've been blocked several times in the past, I simply learned not to edit war. Paranoid much? FunkMonk (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

These are sources from January 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/world/middleeast/syrian-weapons-center-said-to-be-damaged.html?_r=0 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/01/31/israels-strike-on-syria-as-a-dress-rehearsal-for-conflict-with-iran/

Since January 2013 still today Israel military doing military attack against Syrian army sites they never attack the insurgents only the regime since the conflict star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by without drama just need to Put the Israeli flag on Armament support for Position --LogFTW (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC) LogFTW (talk • contribs) 14:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. The latest incident was a minor border clash with the Syrian army. It was unrelated to the rebels. Israel does not support groups that wants to see the destruction of Israel.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

FSA spokespeople have proposed cooperation with Israel plenty of times. The insurgents in Syria have done nothing to harm Israeli interests, on the contrary. FunkMonk (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

reuters - [2] - says mohammed qaraqara was murdered by assad regime - (and refers in the article to 'militant groups hostile to the jewish state', meaning the rebel groups in the area -) - Sayerslle (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Which hardly includes the FSA. FunkMonk (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There no was a "minor border" clash according by Israel were air strikes attacking the 'the headquarters of several Syrian army units' these attacks are concerned and periodic since January 2013

And these news trikes so there are no "border clashed" since 2013 star Israel doing concerted Attack against Syrian Army, Israel NEVER attack the Insurgents only the Syrian troops

Lest see =

Israeli military hospital threaten the Insurgents Netanyahu visited the Insurgents wounded http://www.timesofisrael.com/syrian-rebel-leader-thanks-pm-for-standing-by-wounded/

So we have =

Direct Israeli Military support since January 2013 Attack on Syrian Army positions and help the Insurgents gain ground
Concerted military attacks since January 2013
Many Syrians soldiers die in Israeli border this zone is considered a stronger positions from FSA / Al Qaeda https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOtK1xgAbgU
No military support let the insurgent wounded get in Israel held Golan and threaten them.

A LOT sources confirmed that we are not talking if the level from Israel support to Insurgency in Syria is too much or poor but the Israeli support to Armed insurgency in Syria proved be real

How many Military attack Launch US against Syrian Army? 0 How many Military attack Launch Saudi Arabia against Syrian Army? 0 How many Military attack Launch Qatar against Syrian Army? 0 How many Military attack Launch Turkey against Syrian Army? Severals but less than Israel

How many Military attack Launch Israel against Syrian Army? Severals more than Turkey.

Why US, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia Flag deserved be in Support for the Insurgents and no Israel?

Israel flag should be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 12:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

in the very first article you linked to at the top of this thread it says Israel has carefully monitored the fighting in Syria, but has generally kept its distance and avoided taking sides.

On several occasions, mortar shells and other types of fire have landed on the Israeli side of the de facto border, drawing limited Israeli reprisals.

Israel is also believed to have carried out several airstrikes on arms shipments it believed to be headed from Syria to Hezbollah militants in neighbouring Lebanon. - thats what you[3] linked to. thats how RS are reporting things. this is likely because it bears close resemblance to reality. for unreal-ler views you should read globalresearch/russiatoday/mintpress etc and there youll see stuff like ghouta chemical attacks was Saudi/turkey/anybodybutassadregime kind of thing and then you'll be happy. Sayerslle (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hezbollah no fight the anti government Insurgents in Syria too Hezbollah and Syrian State are ALLIED-

Hezbollah is PART of the conflict and allied from Syrians troops.

So Israel claim attack Hezbollah and Syrian Army both - Insurgents in Syria (FSA, Al Qaeda, Islamic Front) Fight Hezbollah and Syrian Army both...... Common I link more than 20+ Sources who confirms Israel attack many times the Syrian troops is time to put on the article a Israel support

Israeli state claim and doing attacks against Syrian State many times
Syrian state claim Israel support the Insurgents

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/178084

Israel only attack the Syrian troops never the Insurgents--LogFTW

Just put the Israeli Flag in Armament Support because MANY sources confirmed that http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.600486 ..(talk) 14:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

its just the infoboxlogftw , its meant to present the main players I believe - maybe the infobox should have ISIS in its own sphere - look at this tweet -

'Aymenn J Al-Tamimi @ajaltamimi · Jun 24

Always baffles me how ISIS must be supposed to be an 'agent of/colluding with' X, Y and Z. ISIS is its own thing, people' - and ISIS seems to be about something like the reconquest of Jerusalem or something, a caliphate? encompassing parts of Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Jordan - ISIS should be separated maybe. its about its own thing.Sayerslle (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Nusra, Islamic Front and Muslim Brotherhood want a Caliphate as well. What's the difference? FunkMonk (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

extent maybe? do the IF just want to build an Islamic state in Syria? BBC -'Isis is fighting Free Syrian Army groups as well as the Islamic Front, a coalition of Syrian rebel factions which also wants to build an Islamic state in Syria.' -whatever, it seems regular now that maps and such distinguish between ISIS and rebels - eg [4]Sayerslle (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Remember when FSA fought with Nusra? It's the same, just turf-wars among brutal gangs. Even back then FSA blamed Nusra for being an invention of the regime. But seems these guys are not afraid of sounding like broken records. Now the weaker, mainly Syrian gangs are just trying to stick together, because ISIS gets all the foreigners, and therefore continues to grow in membership. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

ah yes, brutal gangs versus the civilized regime - like civilized barrel bombs from SAA helicopters on aleppo -[5] - (and you don't mind the lavrov/putin gang sounding like broken records I notice even when its monstrous lies about ghouta) - sednaya release worked out well for your machiavel Sayerslle (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC) 16:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Who said the regime wasn't brutal? All warring armies are. And funny you should mention the prisoner thing yet again. Several released Guantanamo prisoners ended up as leaders of ISIS. Does this mean that the US and Assad were working together to discredit the "revolution"? How far does the conspiracy go? FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The Haaretz article linked does not say anything about Isreael supporting the rebels. In fact, the article says that the IDF said "We will not tolerate attacks on Israeli citizens or on IDF troops. Anyone who tries to disrupt our lives will pay a heavy price, whether it is the Syrian army or terrorist groups operating on Syrian territory." Clearly Israel is not involved in the Syrian civil war and it is not taking sides.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

^ Israel only attack Syrian Army or Hezbollah never others armed groups - Israel never bombing a single time Al Qaeda, FSA positions in more than three years of conflict, Israel did (According by Israeli press) at least 30 attacks against Syrian Army position since January 2013 we can considered it as a clear very solid evidence from Israeli military support for anti regime insurgent.

What are the fear complexes to add the Israeli flag on "Armament support" for the Insurgents after MANY evidences confirmed it ?

I no understand, seems it's a complexes by some users here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 10:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I regard claims of Israeli involvement on either of this civil war to be propaganda. If Israel has any strategic interest in this conflict it is that it wants it to continue for as long as possible. As the Israelis themselves put it: "on one side you have Hezbollah and Iran, and on the other side you have Al-Qaeda and the Islamists. So all we have to do is sit back and watch the fireworks." If anything the Israelis are trying to aid BOTH sides of this conflict. Claiming that your enemies are in league with the Zionists and that you are the champion who liberate Palestine is one of the common political tactics in the Arab world and it should not surprise anyone that both the Syrian Opposition and the Government accuse the other of being Zionist agents and have "evidence" supporting those charges. What is surprising is that people here actually think that such claims amount to anything other than typical Middle Eastern politics.

Yet the fact is that Israel has attacked Syria multiple times, but not the "rebels" even once, but have actually treated rebel fighters in the Golan. Furthermore, Israel is allied to the main backers of the rebels, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. These facts speak for themselves. Furthermore, Israel wants the weakening of Iran and its allies above all, which is what the "rebels" are doing. FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You do not understand my point. You seem to think that the Israeli's favor the opposition running Syria. Israel's goal is to have the war go on for as long as possible. Given that the Government currently has the upper hand against the Free Syrian Army that would logically mean that missions against the Government are necessary to balance the playing-field and preserve a bloody stalemate. Relavant to this conversation is the fact that Hamas seems to have renounced Assad's Government, about a year ago the Jerusalem Post featured this report. The comments featured below are quite similar to the argument we are having here <http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Hamas-reportedly-training-Syrian-rebels-in-Damascus-308795>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.26.73 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

UK support the insurgents

Mr Hague also announced that the UK would increase support to Syria's moderate opposition and urged other countries to do the same. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28036470 --LogFTW (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So, unlike most thinking people, Mr Hague seems unconcerned about the dangers of arming, aiding and supporting the rebels in Syria. Or is it that only he can tell the nice FSA from the nasty ISIS? Then again, by aiding the 'good' rebels - and undermining the Assad government - do not the UK and US regimes bear any responsibility for creating the conditions in which terrorism can thrive? 92.16.152.164 (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Al Nusra Front strength

Can Someone please edit Al Nusra front strength with this newer source

strength: 5,000–6,000

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/06/11/why-is-jabhat-al-nusra-no-longer-useful-to-turkey

Jumada (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Article length issue

Hi everyone, I've been editing this article and I have found that one of the key issues in the article being too long is that the conflict is described almost day by day. This is too much detail! To reduce the length of the article, much of this day-by-day description needs to be replaced by summaries of the main points. The day-by-day description of events could be transferred to new articles.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the article would be much improved if 2.3 to 2.15 were trimmed and dumped into a timeline article. Gazkthul (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(Most detailed, extensive) timelines already exist (see Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (September–December 2011) etc.). What OnBeyondZebrax means is: make shorter summaries of sections 2.3 (now 511 words), 2.4+2.5 (now 149+387 words), 2.6 ( …), 2.7 (1348 words!) etc. of approximately 120–300 words and replace those now existing medium-large paragraphs to separate ‘main articles’: the procedure we have already used for period January–July2011. I favour and welcome that idea. Please give it a try. (I’ve tried it once, starting with section 2.7 (Nov2012 etc) in this edit on 6December2013, using this new ‘main article’.) I can warn you it is a difficult job, and colleagues will be critical on your endeavour, but I do believe it is highly necessary, to make the article readable and surveyable.) --Corriebertus (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Four sides

This war is obviously being fought between four sides: Syrian government, Syrian opposition, Kurds and Islamic State. So, why are there only 3 columns in the infobox with Islamic State shown allied with Syrian opposition? Syrian opposition is in better relationships with Kurds than with Islamic State, yet they aren't shown together. So, why can't Islamic State be shown in separate column as well? --83.0.151.26 (talk) 18:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Reason one: four columns are technically impossible. Reason two: ISIS has practically the same objectives as the other jihadis. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I've always doubted the use of such infoboxes. If such box deliberately misrepresents a 'war' for technical reasons (as FunkMonk asserts) the box should simply be removed. --Corriebertus (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't address point two, which is that all the Jihadis have the same cause, in spite of their turf wars. Furthermore, Nusra and other groups are bleeding personnel to ISIS, so it probably won't take long before they have been assimilated, like the FSA largely was before. FunkMonk (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

This was discussed multiple times in the past. ISIS was an ally of the opposition for a full year before they came into open warfare with them as well. Due to this, we have separated ISIS with a double line from the rest of the opposition. Also, the general consensus in the reliable media is that the conflict between ISIS and the opposition is an inter-rebel conflict, which means they regard ISIS to be rebels as well. EkoGraf (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but then why are Kurds in separate column (while Islamic State isn't)? This seems inconsistent. 89.66.133.194 (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Because they have completely different objectives and allegiances? Where's the inconsistency? FunkMonk (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

They are in a separate column because the Kurds were never on anybodies side from the start. They aren't even considered as rebels by Assad's forces. EkoGraf (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show

According to the Washington Post on April 17, 2011, the US State Department has “secretly financed Syrian political opposition groups and related projects, including a satellite TV channel that beams anti-government programming into the country, according to previously undisclosed diplomatic cables.” This is part of a growing body-of-evidence, showing that what happened in Syria is the same tactic used in the US backed 'Color' Revolutions. Showing that stories of brave home-grown protesters are far from the whole picture. And that, far from any 'Syrian Spring', this was a false spring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.152.164 (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we should have a kind of background article to explain stuff like that. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Also consider that the US has been planning similar stuff for decades: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/sep/27/uk.syria1?cat=politics&type=article FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Expanding the article? Retitling?

Maybe it's time for either this article to be expanded to include the conflict in Iraq, or for another broader article encompassing both? (Here is an infobox I made. Mainly because I wanted to practice making infoboxes, but it could be used as an early template I guess.) [ Posted on 6July2014,21:42, by 82.10.53.163 ]

There is this: 2014 Northern Iraq offensive. A new article about both would just be redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Anonymus mr. 82.10.53.163 has a point though: our titling ‘Syrian Civil War’ seems outdated (or has never been correct): the article as it is now does not match our definition of a ‘civil war’. Important belligerents, for example Islamic State, are not of (solely) Syrian descent.

Accurately, our present article might be retitled something like: ‘Wars on Syrian territory, 2011–2014’. In that case, there would however still be no need to include the present War between Islamic State and Iraq, 2014 (for obscure reasons now titled ‘2014 Northern Iraq offensive’), our retitled article ‘Wars on Syrian territory, 2011–2014’ could adequately refer to that ‘War between Islamic State and Iraq, 2014’. --Corriebertus (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You could make the same case for many other civil wars. Furthermore, our interpretation doesn't matter, most sources call this a civil war, so we have to as well. FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I respect your opinion (FM), bot you're wrong. You say: most sources call "this" a civil war. But that word "this" is unspecified, self-referring. Most sources indeed speak of some 'civil war' in Syria, and they are rightly doing so, because there IS a civil war. But only Wikipedia itself decides WHAT it puts together in this one article: nowhere else in the world is THIS set of information put together. Therefore, only Wikipedia can decide over what would be the most appropriate title. If we would title it 'Wars in Syria, 2011-2014', that would certainly not be a lie, nor incorrect. It's no coincidence that newspapers often indeed try to avoid that word 'civil war' by saying for example 'Syria', or 'the battle in Syria', or 'the jihad in Syria', or 'the misery in Syria' etc.: they perhaps feel then that 'civil war' is not always the sharply describing term. We are no newspaper and have our own responsibilities and freedoms. --Corriebertus (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, there was lots of foreign meddling in most other civil wars of the world. The Lebanese civil war is still called civil war, though much of the fighting was done by Palestinians, Israelis, and Syrians. Likewise with the Spanish civil war and others. Like ISIS, the Palestinians operated across borders in the Lebanese war, that doesn't mean their wars in Israel etc are included in the Leb war article. The Libyan civil war was pretty much won by NATO, yet it is still called civil war. It is important to look at precedents and not jump overboard at every new development. FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I am all for the creation/expansion of Syrian Civil War spillover in Iraq to deal with the links between this conflict and Iraq's and to also work as a mother article for Iraq's new phase of violence because Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) is pretty outdated. But nothing should change here and if anyone thinks that the title is inaccurate, feel free to start a move request. I personally wouldn't recommend it because we have a stable consensus for 'civil war' now, which is a common name. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Against changing the name of Syrian civil war because that is the common name per reliable sources. Syrian civil war spillover in Iraq article would be redundant considering the issue is already covered enough in the Syrian civil war and Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) articles. No sources that the Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) ended. It just got reinvigorated thanks to Syria. EkoGraf (talk) 18:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I fully support editor EkoGraf because his arguments prove that there is no need to change the title of the article. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Question

What is the total number of foreigners fighting for the rebels if 15,500 out of the 50 - 60 thousand killed on the side of the rebels are foreigners?

Seems like this is not a domestic revolution, but war imported on a country.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.18.64 (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Old maps

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&direction=next&oldid=588597756

This map here as well as all others don't appear to load properly unless it is of the most recent version — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.141.234 (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Problems and errors in our presentation of events April–May2011 in Daraa, Homs, Baniyas

Since 19April2011, our basic, most detailed recount of events in the Syrian 2011 uprising was located in “main article” Timeline of the 2011 Syrian protests (later retitled as ‘…uprising’, later ‘…civil war’), leaving a summary and a clear directing link to that ‘main article’ in the top of article ‘2011 Syrian protests’ (later titled ‘Syrian Civil War’) , section 2. This hierarchical Wikipedia principle was broken on 6May2011 by the way how EkoGraf introduced an article called ‘Siege of Daraa’ covering events 25April–5May2011. Those events being part of that ‘Syrian uprising’ normally ought to have been in detail presented in mentioned Timeline. Early 7May2011 however, detailed events in Daraa in those 11 days were, differently, recounted in two articles: ‘Timeline’, and ‘Siege of Daraa’. Such parallel presentation must, as we know, be actively avoided in Wikipedia.

Which brings up my first question to EkoGraf: why did he start that (partly redundant, incongruous) extra article ‘Siege’?
If he, or anyone, can give a good reason for a main article Daraa25April–5May2011, such article should have to be constructed as hierarchical subarticle of the earlier existing ‘Timeline’-article, leaving a summary and referring line in ‘Timeline’ so that everyone would understand that the most detailed recount was only to be found in ‘Siege of Daraa’ (or whatever its title).

Somewhere in the weeks after 6May2011 however, a ‘main article:Siege of Daraa’ was constructed by someone as subarticle to ‘25April2011’ in ‘Timeline’ (see for example version 30June2011), and clearly not according to the Wiki standards.

What is supposed to be specific to period 25April–5May2011 in Daraa that separates that period from earlier and later days? EkoGraf contends that in those exact 11 days a “siege” of Daraa took place.
Which brings up my second question to EkoGraf: which meaning of ‘siege’ does he mean then there?
- Dictionary merriam-webster gives two definitions of ‘siege’:
- (a) ‘a military blockade of a city or fortified place to compel it to surrender’. This presupposes a war between state powers and therefore this meaning is not applicable here. Only the first part of that definition is applicable here: ‘military blockade’. But do we have proofs of a blockade of Daraa beginning 25April and ending 5May? No — on the contrary:
  - Source Time, 10June2011 tells of a military blockade (“permanent lockdown, surrounded”) of the old al-Balad neighbourhood of Daraa since end of March, lasting until at least 27May; that source and also NewYorkTimes, 1April2011, say that the whole of Daraa was by early April already militarily surrounded and largely sealed off.
  - Those already existing blockades may have (slightly) altered at 25April (but we have no clear information saying so).
  - Neither have we information saying the military surrounding of Daraa ended on 5May, nor on any other date. On the contrary: read in ‘Siege of Daraa’: 5May: army units remained deployed at entrances to the city; 6May: protesters could not enter Daraa…; 8May(but removed from the article on 19June2014 by EkoGraf, so check this older version of 18June2014): Daraa still surrounded by tanks; 13May: tanks fired…security forces raided…in ‘besieged’ Daraa (see present article ‘Siege of Daraa’, footnote 38, LATimes).
  - This means that not only a ‘siege’ in traditional meaning did not take place in Daraa, but that there’s also no ground to suggest a military blockade of Daraa to have started on 25April, nor any to have ended on 5May.
- (b) ‘a persistent or serious attack’.
  - I wouldn’t object to the idea that Daraa was being (metaphorically) ‘attacked’ by the Syrian army since end of March or beginning of April2011 (see above); nor to the idea that such ‘attack’ aggravated on 25April2011; but to assert in an article that the attack on Daraa started on 25April can be misleading, and using the uncommon word ‘siege’ for ‘attack’ extra confusing;
  - and to say that ‘the attack on Daraa’ ended on 5May is incorrect (see above given facts about 6, 8 and 13May).
  - Therefore, even in this rare meaning of ‘siege’ (= ‘attack’), it is incorrect to suggest such ‘siege’ (= ‘attack’) lasted from 25April–5May2011, as article ‘Siege of Daraa’ would say now.
On the other hand: acknowledging that events in Daraa on 25April2011 started to be complicated I do intend to place all events in Daraa from 25April2011 onwards together in one separate main article, and periodically extract summaries from that article to be placed in the existing hierarchical umbrella articles ‘Timeline of the SCW’. The logical title for that new main article would be: ‘Syrian Civil War in Daraa’, and it should begin with a summarizing section: ‘Protests 16March–24April2011’ referring to: ‘Main article:Timeline SCW(January–April 2011)’ for its most detailed presentation. Such article ‘Syrian Civil War in Daraa’ can be achieved in two ways: preferably by retitling and reorganizing ‘Siege of Daraa’, for which I need your advance support (‘radical change’ is otherwise not allowed), or by starting a new article for it. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Your question number one - Why did I start the article? NOTABILITY (per Wikipedia policy). The protests in Daraa and the subsequent two-week siege and military operations in question were the flashpoint events that started the civil war in Syria, not to mention this was covered enough at that time in the reliable and notable media outlets. Also, this would be the answer to your request on a good reason for a main article Daraa25April–5May2011.
Your question number two - Which meaning of ‘siege’ do I mean? First of, quoting the definition of the word siege from the dictionary is all OK, but irrelevant on Wikipedia if the COMMONNAME (per Wikipedia policy) of the event is siege. [6][7][8][9] We go with the common name.
Your question number three or rather assertion - That the start date of the event/siege is not 25 April and the end date is not 5 May. The sources I listed above clearly point out that 25 April is the start date of the event/siege, especially the highly reliable and notable CNN. Also, sources from 5 May clearly stated that offensive military operations that started 25 April had ended 5 May after the last of the resistance had been eliminated [10][11][12]. Your subsequent sources about the military continuing being present in and around Daraa does not in any way indicate a siege of the city continues, especially if the military already controls the whole city, which was fulfilled by 5 May. They continue to conduct raids yes, they continue to have skirmishes yes, they continue to have checkpoints around the city yes, they continue to have a presence in the city as well yes, but that all fits what a regular Army does when facing an insurgency.
As for how other editors constructed the article to more resemble the timeline article, I was not responsible for that and actually agree with you the article would need to be re-written and some info maybe removed from the timeline article so the Siege of Daraa would be the real main one. EkoGraf (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yup. I'm not sure why Corriebertus has a problem with the usage of the word "siege". It's used in many sources. As for organization, this is an ongoing conflict. Don't worry too much about the possibly poor organization of content right now. After the conflict is over, organization of events will become easier.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree to EkoGraf and FutureTrillionaire because I also see no problem with the designation of the word "siege" in these articles! And how said FutureTrillionaire when the conflict is over, organization of events will become easier. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Future asks why I have a problem with the usage of the word ‘siege’. I have such problem only in some contexts. The reason is: words have meanings—that is the basis of verbal communication. If we start calling a chair an “apple”, and an orange a “chicken”, we may as well stop talking and writing altogether. The trick of propaganda, and of politicians almost as soon as they open their mouths, is often to try to give a twist, a spin, a (sometimes subtly) new meaning to an existing word. Scientists/historians/encyclopedians as ourselves must then be alert: what is happening? what is he really saying, or trying to imply or to suggest, and what are the sober facts? The dictionary is clear about ‘siege’. To help you on the way I’ve spelled out its standard meaning and its secundary meaning, and shown that the main meaning can’t have been intended by Eko when starting the article ‘siege of daraa’. That is not refuted by Eko. I openly asked Eko which (perhaps new?) meaning he intended, he does not answer. That means he does not know himself, and also that he doesn’t mean the primary nor the secundary dictionary-meaning given. Eko refers to sources that apparently use the word ‘siege’ but do not specify what they indicate with that word. That usage is then perhaps propaganda, framing, spinning, laziness, or whatever. If a source uses a word and I can’t make out what it means with the word, I’m not obliged to do anything with that usage of that word or with that non-information.

While not answering directly, Eko suggests perhaps that his (personal) meaning of ‘siege’ is: ‘offensive military operation’. I admit that that term is long, but it is also fairly clear. A term being (wearily) long is not a good reason for a Wiki-editor to replace it by a short word (e.g. ‘siege’) if that short word has not the meaning the long term has. ‘Offensive military operations’ to have started altogether on 25April2011 is arbitrary: is the earlier started blockading and famishing of (part of) town not offensive? O.m.o. to have ended on 5May is fantasy, incorrect, see 13 May. ‘Resistance being eliminated’ on 5May is fantasy, unsourced. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Whatever your or my personal opinions are about the terms, Wikipedia is clear on this issue. Common name trumps all. As for the dates, they are both sourced, if you think the dates were arbitrary in your opinion that's your right. But again, per Wikipedia, sources trump all personal opinions. EkoGraf (talk) 05:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

technical problem (refs) on this page

At the bottom of this page, (at present) three references are given, which belong to (perhaps different) sections much higher on the page. This is a very confusing situation. What is a technical fix for this phenomenon? --Corriebertus (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I've reported this on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 128#Talk_page_references. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Trying something... FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

^ Holliday, Joseph (December 2011). "The Struggle for Syria in 2011" (PDF). Institute for the Study of War. Retrieved 29 May 2014. (pages 7 and 21)
^ Landis, Joshua (29 July 2011). "Free Syrian Army Founded by Seven Officers to Fight the Syrian Army". Syria Comment. Retrieved 29 May 2014.
^ "Defecting troops form 'Free Syrian Army', target Assad security forces". World Tribune. 3 August 2011. Retrieved 29 May 2014.

^Yup, that fixed it. They'll stay wherever that code is placed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Goody, thanks. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ask

Could create an article about the spillover of the Iraq war in northeastern Syria or even in Syrian Kurdistan as such in the article 2014 Northern Iraq offensive? 189.61.191.13 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

There's Spillover of the Syrian Civil War, but I'm afraid it could amount to a certain level of original research ~~and it currently has a turd-like infobox which I'm trying to fix~~. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Strength needs to be updated for 2014

lets start with Nusra front

old strength in article: 7,000-8,000 new current strength: 5,000-6,000

source: http://www.heartsofiron4.com/r/xzu79nziq7

Jumada (talk) 23:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIS strength needs to be updated

According to SOHR, ISIS now has 50,000 fighters in Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Color Revolts and US involvement in maintaining civil unrest

Given that US involvement in supporting Color Revolts is well recorded, and considering the evidence that - far from 'freedom-loving' home grown protesters - it the US that helped start and maintain the Syrian Civil War, would not section on this be helpful in understanding the conflict? 92.20.224.168 (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

if you have material you think is important for the article, and reliable sources, then you add it to the article, I believe that is the idea of Wikipedia. Sayerslle (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It has been well known for years that the US funded opposition groups and their propaganda long before 2011. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-us-secretly-backed-syria-opposition/ and http://gulfnews.com/news/region/libya/us-document-reveals-cooperation-between-washington-and-brotherhood-1.1349207 FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

foreign plots. I mean I believe mossadeq in iran was targeted , i'm sure the world is a very cynical place - (except the puresystematic torture Assad regime,[13] and saint Vladimir Putin Russia regime and (not at all shiapriestriddenIran , they don't act other than in a saintly way of course , never any chicanery there obviously) - -so just add what you believe is important to add with RS. just do it with a bit of honesty in your mind and ask yourself - are you being critical minded in a non biased wp:NEUTRAL way or are you out to highlight any POINT-y material that exists anywhere that supports a assad regime narrative that you embrace- assad regime hafez-bashar always argues its only critics are all foreign puppets, no? Sayerslle (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the peaceful uprisings in Bahrain and Eastern Saudia are the only real foreign plots, right Sayer? Evil Iranian Shia plots! Not to forget the uprising in Eastern Ukraine, where civilians are being mercilessly shelled. But I guess lives are worth nothing when they are anti-western. Oh, and if the dictator is Saudi funded, as in Egypt. Not a single noise from you about those, Sayer. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No we are not arguing that only pro-western rebellions are legitimate, what we are arguing is that just as the west has there own bias the Russians do too and that parroting the Kremlin's propaganda is no different than parroting Washington's propaganda. Your entire view of this war seems to revolve around two ideas: firstly that all western sources are biased and secondly that only Russian sources are objective. No noise comes from Sayer about anti-western uprisings, however the ONLY noise that comes from YOU about pro-western uprisings is that they are all a foreign plot devised by the evil westerners. To this accusation you declare that your sources are unbiased Russian propaganda is more truthful than western propaganda. Why? Because Russian propaganda told you so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.97.30.242 (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

So where have I even once cited a Russian source? Is gulfnews.com Russian propaganda? Keep useless knee-jerk accusations out of this, and deal with the facts. Funny how quiet this page has become, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 02:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

@ funkmonk - this cartoon can help explain to you the quiet maybe [14]Sayerslle (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Still no sight of the "big terrorist" among the Bahraini protesters... Hasn't sped up western intervention, funnily enough, and the world has long forgotten. FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

its maybe 'quiet'/flattenedbybarrelbombsin east Aleppo too Sayerslle (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, this Kenneth Roth?[15][16][17] FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

you change the subject - that's the middle square on the left ticked of the propagandists [Bingo] card] Sayerslle (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Lol, yes, it's a purely Russian thing, though I remember notifying you of derailment multiple times in the past. Got a Russian grandparent, perhaps? But yes. Salafist thugs are hiding in civilian areas of Aleppo, Syria is simply responding the same way your Ukrainian friends are doing to the separatists (as much "their own people" as the Salafists of Syria, if not more). Should be fine by the pro-NATO handbook then. So why be a hypocrite? FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

notforum - no point responding anyhow - its a morally ambiguous universe. you know i'm naïve enough to believe Assad rleased the thugs in the past to create ths kind of situation, and has left them pretty much untouched, until very recently as the situation has changed, and meanwhile barrel bombed whole districts of civilians , (and gassed them - whatever the partisangirls, and Hezbollah, and putinists, and western shills say.) Sayerslle (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"No forum", so what's your point? Baghdadi was released by the US, as were plenty other ISIS leaders (straight from Guantanamo, does that make the US an Assad ally?). The guys Assad released ended up in Ahrar al Sham (still considered "good rebels" by many), not ISIS, and they were released as appeasement to the opposition. Divide and conquer is the oldest, most effective trick in the book. Of course Assad will exploit intra-Jihadi turf wars, anything else would be insane. FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The section on the Assad government highlights how "Syria became an independent republic in 1946, though democratic rule was ended by a CIA-supported coup in March 1949". Not only does this call into question statements about ‘home-grown’ protests, but is a another indication that this conflict could be the result of Western involvement. Might Wikipedia reflect this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.162.140 (talk) 21:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

So, should the Syrian Civil War (section) reflect past US involvement in the undermining the Syrian Government?

92.24.233.185 (talk) 12:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Is the Assad Government worst than ISIS?

Given the ever-growing concerns about ISIS terror gangs, why does Wikipedia continue to maintain the statement that: "the vast majority of abuses, as well as the largest in scale, were being committed by the Syrian government"? In light of latest events, should not this questionable statement be updated? 92.24.233.185 (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

It is so obviously biased that it should at least be removed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Do it then! We are told to be bold as editors. Its not Wikipedia continuing to maintain this statement. Its we editors not being bold enough to remove controversial and unsourced statements.

TonyClarke (talk) 08:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Tabqa

In the most recent entry of Syrian_Civil_War#ISIS_offensive_and_continued_fighting_.28July_2014_-_ongoing.29 Tabqa airbase is mentioned. Is Tabqa just an airbase, or also a quarter or a town? We don't seem to have an entry for either and the news reports are also not too precise. Maybe somebody could also update the disambiguation page. ---Tobias1984 (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There is the town of Tabqa, on the bank of the lake, and the Tabqa air base some dozens of miles to the south. EkoGraf (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Belligerents article

Belligerents of the Syrian Civil War was apparently copied from this article and doesn't add anything new. Therefore I have nominated it for deletion some time ago. Can the resident editors here join the discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belligerents of the Syrian Civil War) to generate more thoughts on the issue? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not let it be, and shorten the section here instead? We want this article to be shorter after all. FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Since List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War exists & seems to more advanced, the Belligerents of the Syrian Civil War article seems redundant. Shorten the relevant section here, but have the info at List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War. Either merge Belligerents of the Syrian Civil War into List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War or have it redirect there (if there's no unique info in the article). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Article too long (again...)

Dear colleagues. The article is horrifyingly long, and keeps getting longer. It's now 278,000 bytes; no doubt a vast majority of us consider that (highly) undesirable, unpractical, et cetera (as is also signaled by the tag above the article since Nov.2013, when it was still 'only' 200,000 bytes). Last time we discussed this issue was here, discussion 'Article length issue', in July2014. Last time someone attempted shortening the article, it was perhaps me, here in this edit on 6Dec2013, but I was then mercilessly reverted by some colleague. Can please one of the other very experienced editors on this page make an attempt, in which ever way, to considerably shorten this main article? --Corriebertus (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Move requested to make room for American operations in Syria

There's a move discussion at Talk:2014_American_rescue_mission_in_Syria#Move_request_-_9_September_2014 to move 2014 American rescue mission in Syria back to original title 2014 American operations in Syria. With surveillance flights ongoing and airstrikes soon to happen there needs to be a place to put this.~Technophant (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You have already been warned at that article's talk page that creating an article on events that have not yet even happened is a violation of WP: Crystal ball and possibly OR and Synthesis. And in the case that they may happen than a NEW article would be created since the rescue operation was a notable enough event to have its own article. EkoGraf (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

"US/CIA involvement and operations within Syria"?

Perhaps there could such a section, which - if news comes in of a rescue mission - might be updated?

92.20.243.207 (talk) 11:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox needs update

There should be 5 belligerents: government, FSA, ISIS, Kurds, the US. The US started air strikes on ISIS in Syria.

That is not technically possible, there can only be three. Furthermore, "FSA" is more or less non-existent. US has done less than Israel in this conflict, so if US goes in the box, so does Israel. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The US has involved itself directly in the war. This is blatant declaration of war on the part of the US. The US has to be added as a belligerent somewhere in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 15:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Funky. US has so far not involved itself directly in the war. If we consider the criteria for involving yourself in a war than Israel deserves to be put in the infobox more than the US since they have conducted half a dozen airstrikes against the Syrian military, while the US only made one failed hostage rescue attempt months ago (not really a declaration of war). EkoGraf (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no perfect solution, but the infobox is really looking silly at the moment, with Islamic State at the bottom of Syrian Opposition column, and the US-led anti Islamic State coalition at the bottom of the Kurds column. Gazkthul (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is it silly? Nothing could make more sense with the limitations we have. The other rebel groups are even defending IS these days, Nusra is being bombed too, so this will only serve to unite them. The only group the US is unambiguously aligned with is the Kurds. What's silly is listing every single member country of this "anti-IS coalition" as belligerents, we should only list those that actually fight.FunkMonk (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Syria Revolutionaries Front in infobox

Why is the Syria Revolutionaries Front listed separately from the Free Syrian Army in the infobox if it is established the SRF is actually an alliance of 14 FSA brigades? This would actually mean the SRF is a branch of the FSA...possibly its largest, but still part of the FSA. Based on this the SRF should be removed from the infobox since we don't list individual units of the top rebel organisations. EkoGraf (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

SRF is not part of FSA. They are separate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 15:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Khorasan

There's been a lot of talk lately about a new rebel group fighting in Syria called Khorasan. How come they don't have an article yet? Charles Essie (talk) 02:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, someone already made one. Charles Essie (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not a distinct group, it is just Nusra. http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/148624-doubts-cast-over-u-s-strike-on-khorasan-group FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Updated summarizing section ‘Free Syrian Army’, 25Sept2014

This section ‘Free Syrian Army’ in article Syrian Civil War contained lots of information that were not at all presented in what it nevertheless called its ‘main article: Free Syrian Army’. That was technically a very incorrect situation in Wikipedia. I’ve therefore copied those informations to the now truly ‘main article Free Syrian Army’ (in its sections 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8), and in return placed a summary of that now updated ‘main article’ now here in this section SCW#FSA, with special attention to some topics that formerly were treated here at great length: US transfer of $123 million; FSA admitting that ‘the rebels’ were badly fragmented (May 2013); direct talks with the Assad government (August 2013); FSA members running over to Islamic State (August 2014). Of course, you may wish to adapt this here summary further, but please keep it concise, leaving the long stories where they belong, in the genuine ‘main article’. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Updated the beginning of section 2.2, 25Sept2014

Section 2.2 (‘Protests and armed insurgency (July–October 2011)’) started with six sentences about FSA (Free Syrian Army), which I’ll indicate here with their number and one of their first significant words (for example: [1,seven], [4,grow]). Sentences [3] and [4] were unsourced. Sentence [5,remained] was off-topic where it spoke of Dec2012(belongs in sect.2.3–2.7). The rest of sentences [5] and [6,insurgent] were off-topic because our section 2 is for the proceedings of the war, not for describing actors like FSA (which belongs in main article ‘Free Syrian Army’). Sentence [2,Composed] was partly unsourced (‘volunteers’), and partly repeating sentence 1: therefore, I’ve integrated its extra information into sentence [1], and removed old sentences [3,4,5 and 6]. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

[ISW,page7,21-1] Holliday, Joseph (December 2011). "The Struggle for Syria in 2011" (PDF). Institute for the Study of War. Retrieved 29 May 2014. (pages 7 and 21)

[Landis29-7-11-2] Landis, Joshua (29 July 2011). "Free Syrian Army Founded by Seven Officers to Fight the Syrian Army". Syria Comment. Retrieved 29 May 2014.

[wtarc-3] "Defecting troops form 'Free Syrian Army', target Assad security forces". World Tribune. 3 August 2011. Retrieved 29 May 2014.

[1]

[2]

[3]