Talk:Free Syrian Army/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Intel on rebel groups

This article has excellent information on the rebel groups:

  • there were between 70,000 and 100,000 rebels fighting against the Syrian regime in Syria.
  • there are more than 30 opposition groups fighting in Syria (FSA the most predominate)

Article includes a PDF map identifying 15 of the opposition groups and a map where they operate. Good quote:

  • “Fifty armed men come together and they form a rebel group. They generally give their groups names from the Quran or the names the towns and areas they are coming from. Some groups such as the al-Tawhid and al-Fatah brigades consider themselves part of the FSA, however mostly they don’t listen to the orders of the regional leaders of the FSA. We cannot talk about a chain of command amongst these groups.”

The SNC (Syrian National Council) is attempting to meet with groups and unite them. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


Since the above source identifies by name 15 of the 30 rebel groups, including descriptions and where they operate, are we tracking this sort of information? Or are we only focused on the FSA, the other 29 rebel groups don't merit mention? Even the FSA is apparently a bunch of fractured groups with command and control problems. Perhaps we need a higher level article dealing with all rebel groups as names, locations and ideologies become known. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Syrian opposition mainly covers political opposition groups, though it does include the FSA. Boud (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Operations: split? delete?

Is it me, or does the operations section of this article looks like a fork? FSA operations are already covered in the main war article and the more specific regional articles. Is that section here really necessary? It's long and takes up a lot of space. I want to delete it. I sense this might be controversial, so I'm willing to to split this part as an alternative. What do you guys think? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I'm not for the deletion of the material, but...not sure, it is getting long... EkoGraf (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I've split the section into its own article Free Syrian Army operations, and replaced what we have here with a summary. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
The list of operations seems totally redundant to me, though now that it's split, maybe some editors will eventually check how much sense it makes as a coherent article. It should focus on why the role of the FSA rather than the events themselves, and crosslink to the events. Boud (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


File:Riyad al-Asad.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Riyad al-Asad.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


Even the Syrian National Council claims a number between 12.000 - 15.000, so i belive that the number of more tahn 100.000 is unrealistic. I am gonna change it to the ofcial numbers of the SNC. http://www.syriancouncil.org/en/issues/item/105-snc-and-the-free-syrian-army.html Elvis214 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

relation to "unified command"

So far I only see one source (copied widely in the Western mainstream media, because it's Thomson Reuters) for the new "unified command", and it's not very specific about its claims about the proportion of "people connected with Islamists" in the unified command. The article makes the "unified command" sound quite important, and that it's something like "islamist-dominated armed coalition to shift aside the FSA". If RS's start supporting its notability, then it should split off into an article on its own and info like that can mainly go there with a summary here, IMHO. By that time there should be more info about the relation between the FSA and the "unified command" (and between the "unified command" and the National Coalition. Boud (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The Huffington Post/AP article makes it clear that this is a reorganisation of the FSA, not a rival to the FSA. The Thomson Reuters article (old version or updated version) lets the reader think that this is a rival to the FSA, but does not contradict any major points of the Huffington Post/AP article (except in the number of people at the meeting: 263 vs "over 550"), so the information common to both is that this is a reorganisation of the FSA in which al-Asaad retains his title but becomes mainly symbolic. Thomson Reuters emphasises the major role of "Islamists" in the new unified command, while Huffington Post/AP emphasises that "extremists" and "hard-line Islamists" are rejected from the new unified command. IMHO it looks like there's a Western mainstream media battle about how to present the new unified command in relation to different branches of Islamism and Jihadism. So my suggestion is to better focus on specific groups' or individuals' names and descriptions such as Islamist, Salafist or Jihadist or "hard-line", "soft-line", etc. had better be quoted and immediately sourced if they are unavoidable, or else check the Wikipedia entries to see if the groups are reliably sourced as being classified under those labels. Boud (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC) (minor edit: Boud (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC))

It seems like Thomson Reuters continues to be ambiguous about the relation between the FSA and the "new unified command" - it doesn't state clearly that FSA should be considered a successor or reorganisation of the FSA. But it doesn't contradict the Huff Post/AP article either. new Thomson Reuters article. Boud (talk) 22:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm still curious about this. Joshua Landis cites this statement from "Syrian Arabic Republic, The Supreme Military Council Command" on the Carnegie Middle East Center's web site. If this is bona fide from the Supreme Military Council, it's interesting that it does not mention the Free Syrian Army or Riad al-Asaad at all. It describes Salim Idris not as chief of staff but as commander-in-chief. It also states that the head of the Supreme Military Council is the minister of defense, who is to be selected by the prime minister from a list provided by the Supreme Military Council; the Supreme Military Council also nominates the candidates for Interior Minister. No defense minister is mentioned by name and this provision appears to be inoperative.
We might consider making a separate Supreme Military Council article and describing the uncertainty over the command of the Free Syrian Army.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
That said, this article includes U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford stating, "there was a meeting of the Free Syrian Army to set up a unified command". You'd think he would know what's going on, and I can't think of a reason he would want to mislead.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal of inconsistent statement

The following quote has been removed for being inconsistent:

As of the end of 2012, according to the The Economist, "the Free Syrian Army, which claimed to be an umbrella group for all the fighters, is now just a clutch of generally secular groups whose power is dwindling as better-armed and -organised Islamists gain weight."[1]

The statement contradicts the information in the Economist article itself and other reliable sources. The FSA went through a reorganisation where 500 field commanders got together to chose a new 30 person military council. The FSA and its 30 person military council and affiliated units are clearly not a clutch of groups. Who exactly are these stronger armed Islamist groups? The Nusra Front is strong, however, the FSA according to numerous reliable sources is still the dominant armed opposition in Syria. Guest2625 (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You have clearly misunderstood the article. The 30-man Supreme Military Council mentioned in the article is not the FSA exclusively as you assume. It is a collection of groups, with members beyond the FSA. This is what the article says quite clearly. No one is saying the FSA is dead and buried, but the reality is radicals, extremists and others have cut down the size and influence of the FSA. That might be hard to accept, but that's reality and the article is very recent and up to date, so i don't think we should just discount it. If you want to remove it then i would like to see references that oppose The Economist statement that are as recent or more updated.Fotoriety (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not 100% true Fotoriety. The FSA isn't all secular. There are moderate Islamist brigades (Liwa al-Tawhid and the Sham Falcons), as well as secular brigades (Farouqk, Storm of the North and Hamza Kateeb) and minority brigades (Christian, Kurds and Druze). So to say the FSA is just some secular brigades together isn't the truth at all. Radical Jihadist groups consist of some 10.000 to 20.000 in total, while the total strengh of the rebelion is between 100.000 and 150.000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.31.204.195 (talk) 14:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we get some more reliable sources for the FSA's strength?

Article lists FSA strength at 100,000, yet the only two sources cited are those from the mouth of Riad al-Assad or the pro-Hariri (therefore pro-Saud) Yalibnan. Not reliable if you ask me.

For one, leaders are akin to exaggerating their numbers to instil fear. Castro did it in the Sierra Maestra of Cuba and Hitler did it when his soldiers crossed the Rhine into France. So why should we believe Riad al-Assad??

Second, we cannot have pro-Saud newspapers on here. Not neutral, and espouses a particular bias against Syria.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Does anybody have anything insightful to add? I'm considering deleting the part where it states FSA's strength at 100,000 and changing to unknown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.81.115 (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a Syrian army

It is based and equipped in Turkey, it is a foreign army. Alarm bells also start to ring when you consider that Turkey has a serious territorial dispute/claim on Syrian territory. This article is turkish propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad Dracula (talk • contribs) 11:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I wish it would be equipped by Turkey; but there is no evidence at all that these freedom fighters are equipped by Turkey or if there are cross-border operation against the Assad Gangs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.198.27.5 (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The Free Syrian Army is led by former officers of the Syrian Army, with defected Syrian troops according to most reliable news sources. I understand they maintain a command structure in Turkey, but their scope of operations is entirely in Syria. According to Vlad Dracula's logic, the Syrian state army would Russian since it is equipped, trained and advised by the Russians. Eatabullet (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
This article is a puff piece. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It is made up with people from 38 countries. It isn't Syrian at all and at the beginning they were mostly from Libya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.192.83 (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The FSA is a a foreign army. It is it made up of primarily foreigners and it follows the will of a foreign power. FunkMonk offends critical thought and reason when it tries to deduce that "the syrian army would Russian since it is equipped...by the Russians." There is a flaw in this reasoning. Bashar Assad rules Syria for the Syrian people as a whole. The FSA is fighting for control, in hopes it can rule Syria divisively. Russia is helping Assad because with Assad Syria is a stronger, independent state. The west and other opportunistic states are funding and arming the FSA to divide Syria so its resources can be stolen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etoscillation (talk • contribs) 14:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic and Religious Composition of FSA

Well right now it says this: "The Free Syrian Army is made up of terrorists trying to instil sharia law in a currently secular syria. They have killed all non sunni muslims, going as far as beheading a 3 year old girl, and raping and killing another." Seems like a problem. 97.113.4.124 (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I realize this is a touchy subject across the entire region, but one of the main reasons for the lack of Western support is the perception of the FSA as the army of the majority Sunni Arabs. This article states several times that the FSA is (or purports to be) representative of a secular and democratic future Syria in which retribution against the (mainly Alawite, Christian, and minority) supporters of the regime will not be undertaken. Is there any demographic data to suggest this is the case?

The article mentions the defection of an Air Force General who is an ethnic Turkmen, but is otherwise silent on ethnicity. In fact, it states that Abdelaziz Tlass of the Farouq Brigade is the nephew of a major regime figure, Mustapha Tlass, without mentioning that Mustapha was considered by many to be a Sunni 'fig-leaf' on an otherwise all Alawi regime. I may be wrong in perceiving that as an obfuscation, but if the FSA is genuinely representative of the Syrian people it must have some support among the Kurdish, Christian, Alawi, Shiite, etc minorities. This article should make clear whether the demographic composition of the FSA is representative of the demographic composition of Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.167.26 (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It is overwhelmingly, if not completely, Sunni Arab in composition. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Lund: "Free Syrian Army Does Not Exist"

In this article, reporter Aron Lund argues that "Today, the FSA brand name remains in use within the Syrian opposition, but mostly as a term for the armed uprising in general. It’s quite similar to how a French person would have employed the term 'la Résistance' during WW2 – not in reference to a specific organization fighting against Hitler, but as an umbrella term for them all." Lund points out that the Unified Command of Salim Idriss "doesn’t formally use the FSA name, but the media has invariably described Idriss as 'the newly appointed leader of the FSA'"; he says that this group "is the most recent attempt to create a mainstream Western/Gulf-backed military leadership. Call it FSA if you want to." He concludes with the suggestion, "Instead of saying that the 'FSA' has conquered this or that village, just report the names of the groups involved. ... Or, if information’s missing, as is often the case, just attribute the action by using a non-specific identifier – e.g. rebels, revolutionaries, insurgents, terrorists, paramilitary opposition factions, armed groups, freedom fighters, anti-Assad guerrillas, or whatever you think they really are."—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A couple articles I've read recently give a more encouraging account of the Free Syrian Army. Koert Debeuf wrote a response to Lund called “The Free Syrian Army Does Exist” (see [1] for Debeuf's article and a reply by Lund). Elizabeth O'Bagy wrote a detailed report at http://www.understandingwar.org/report/free-syrian-army (she uses somewhat idiosyncratic terminology: "SOC" = "Syrian Opposition Coalition" = what most people call the National Coalition; "SMC" = "Supreme Military Command", what is sometimes called the FSA Unified Command, also called the Supreme Military Council by the Carnegie Endowment). The impression I'm getting is that it's not so much a question of whether the Free Syrian Army exists or not; rather, "Free Syrian Army" is a series of attempts to create an organisation. Riad al-Asaad created the concept of a "Free Syrian Army", but there was very little organisation at that point. Salim Idris's unified commant is the most recent culmination of the organizing efforts that followed on al-Asaad's initial vision. It now seems clear that Salim Idris presents himself as the head of the FSA, rather a new non-FSA faction.
One thing I'm going to do is simplify the "Commanders" box at the beginning. I'm going to move "Commander-in-Chief" to the end because it is functionally a less important position than Chief of Staff. I'm also going to remove everyone other than Riad al-Asaad who is not associated with the current Supreme Military Command (as Lund points out, there have been many putative commanders of the FSA in between al-Asaad and Salim Idris). I found no source that mentions Hussein Harmoush as FSA commander or Adnan Sillu as Chief of Staff.
If we need a succession box somewhere for "head of the FSA", that's as may be, but we should understand that saying that Salim Idris succeeded Riad al-Asaad in that role is shorthand at best.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This article by BBC's Middle East bureau chief Paul Danahar, says similar: "Firstly, the FSA - that you have been hearing so much about - does not exist. A better title would be MWG, or men with guns, because having guns and firing them in the same direction is the only thing that unites them. The word "army" suggests a cohesive force with a command structure. Almost two years after the FSA was created, that remains illusive." source. --TheoDor12 (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

list of members - why?

Why is there a list of members? Doesn't that kind of put their families at risk of retaliation from the the Syrian gov't? I don't think Wikipedia needs to make itself potentially liable for potential harm to family of the mentioned members. Besides, conscripts (as opposed to officers) really aren't relevant anyway.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The information is widely available. Wikipedia is basically just a summary of cited information available. -Dokky 13:41 GMT+1 06/06/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.130.105 (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What a Stupid map

This "FSA Control" is funny and just impossible http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/Syrian_civil_war.png/759px-Syrian_civil_war.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.131.95 (talk) 09:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is this map funny? I think it's accurate enough. The Free Syrian Army and allied rebel militias control large swathes of rural areas in northern and eastern Syria. Most of those area's don't show on the main maps, because those maps only make use of larger cities and settlements. Those larger towns are still mostly governement controled. One fine example is the Hama governorate. The map shows all cities under Syrian army control, with a few bleu lines around them. In reality, large parts of rural Hama are under FSA control. Towns like Tayibat al-Imam, Latemnah, Kuffa, Qalat al-Madiq, Salhab and Kernaz are under rebel control. Those are however the smaller towns. So I think this map does have it's weak points, but is more accurate than the real Syrian Civil War map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Reorganisation

"About two-thirds of those elected to the new command were individuals associated with the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. Al-Nusra Front and Ahrar al-Sham were not invited to the meeting.[4]"

How is the percentage/fraction of Muslim Brotherhood in the new command obtained ? Is it accurate as the "Rebels Create New Unified Military Command"? Huffington article linked from reference 4 has only a generalization.

Reference 5 links to a Reuters article "Syrian rebels elect head of new military command" and has this - "Its composition, estimated to be two-thirds from the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies". How do we know this is accurate ?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayonewly (talk • contribs) 10:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Relationship with Al-Qaeda

Are there any reasonable sources? Is this piece from globalresearch.ca incorrect? --beefyt (talk) 06:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Global Research Is a junk site for False flag and conspiracy theorists, also good for spreading - Best ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayonewly (talk • contribs) 04:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Propaganda?

The FSA is comprised first and foremost of al-Nusra Front, that is the group that trains and supports, and ultimately has control of the FSA. The U.S. stands alone in suggesting that al-Nusra is only 20-30% of the forces (when in all reality, reports from the field and the information coming from countries surrounding Syria is that it's more like 70-80%) but this article goes even further than that and has the audacity to suggest that al-Nusra is a totally separate group and that the FSA has no affiliation with them. This is just plain wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TelFiRE (talk • contribs) 12:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Any citations for any of that? You seem to be confusing al Nusra with radical Islamists more generally. Al Nusra is a specific organisation of around 5000 members that formed in Jan 2012 and has a much larger presence in some governates (Idlib, Deir ez Zour) than in others (Deraa, Homs). The opposition forces in Syria consist of an estimated 100,000 men of whom tens of thousands are Islamists to a greater or lesser extent. Gazkthul (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Deputy commanders

For a long time, this article has listed Abdel Basset al-Tawil and Abdul Qader Saleh as deputy commanders of the FSA. That seems to be based on at least one media report (duplicated or referenced in innumerable other places), but it appears to be a misunderstanding. The two sources we have that give the most detail on the structure of the Supreme Military Council of the FSA are http://www.understandingwar.org/sites/default/files/Selected-Supreme-Military-Command-Members.pdf and http://carnegie-mec.org/publications/?fa=50445&reloadFlag=1 . These sources agree that the SMC has five deputy commanders, each with an assistant deputy; and that Abdel Basset al-Tawil is one of the deputy commanders, while Abdul Qader Saleh is his assistant deputy commander. There are numerous other important-sounding positions in the titular SMC command structure. We can't list them all, so we shouldn't single out two such people arbitrarily.

Independently of his title within the SMC, Abdul Qader Saleh (the de facto head of the Tawhid Brigade) is in practice perhaps the most powerful commander associated with the Free Syrian Army, judging from Joshua Landis's recent comments. That's if Abdul Qader Saleh still has any involvement with Idris's group, which is unclear. If not, it might be Bashar al-Zoubi of the Yarmouk Brigade instead; he is an assistant deputy commander per the carnegie-mec.org document, and is not mentioned at all in the Understanding War report. Obviously, the titles given by the Supreme Military Commission do not necessarily match realities on the ground.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 23:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that Abdul Qader Saleh died a few days ago. His obituary by Aron Lund is here (this article mentions his title as assistant deputy commander).—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

References....dubious

i know wikipedia has a policy that you cannot say what you think because that is original work. You can only write what some one else think (hahaha), but all this article is just constructed from links to news reports. So what is written is entirely dependant on how a reporter feels on a day or their own POV or political leanings, those are the "facts" according to this article. What a hoot! Wikipedia is just a repository for news reports and rumours, as long as they are published by a third party.!

Exactly. The line "citation please" has become a running joke. These people think that if they can find someone else on the planet who has published the same biased opinion, it suddenly becomes a fact - a "fully referenced" fact. Yes, it is a hoot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.122.14 (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Christians in the Free Syrian Army

A whole subsection for a single phrase based on a single source? OMG, is this still an encyclopedia?--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Link: [2]Ratipok (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC) Can anybody explain me remaining air power of Bashar Al Assad because the aircrafts are letal for syrian people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.253.130 (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Weapons

There should be a section for listing the weapons the FSA has. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that is a good idea, so I broke off a paragraph that related to weapons. Include whatever you think is relevant to the section. -Guest2625 (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I've seen footage on Al Arabiya where the FSA appears to be using captured armored personal carriers in combat, Russian made I think. I've also seen them using large caliber machine guns mounted on pickups. I'm sure there are some references out there. Eatabullet (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This video (GRAPHIC) shows a mosin nagant being used by Syrian rebels there's a clear shot of the rifle at 2:11, should this be added to the list of weapons they use or is one rifle being used by one patrol too minimal? --92.232.49.38 (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

'Not sectarian'?

Every Sunni and Shi'ite, and any honest, informed outside observer knows this is a sectarian conflict-- yet in the opening paragraph it says the FSA is not sectarian with its primary source as the FSA itself, who has every reason to lie to the public to gain UN and NATO support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.168.226 (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The lead now refers to source Turkish Weekly which says: FSA emphasizes that the Syrian conflict is "not a sectarian issue". I can't see why we should mention this in our article. It sounds like a denial after someone else has suggested the conflict to be sectarian. But if we have in our article no record of anyone saying it to be sectarian, I can see no need to mention this denial from FSA against something apparently no one has suggested. Anyway, the statement is not about FSA but about the conflict, so anyway it does not belong in this article. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Updating edit, 25Sept2014

I noticed some mistakes or unsourced statements and, perhaps more important, a great lack of organisation in the whole article and info on FSA misplaced in another article. Therefore, I’ve overhauled and revised a considerable part of the article (as was, by the way, anonymously requested in a tag above the article by colleagues Petri Krohn,March2013 and Cancina,Aug2014), giving clear explanation of every change here on Talk page, so you can reassure yourself that I was only striving for quality, clarity and transparency of the article. Of course, further fine-tuning by you of the article will be welcome, sourced and motivated, please.

A. Structuring the article

After a Wikipedia article is divided into lead section and thematical sections, the lead should preferably consist only of: (a) general remarks that can’t easily be placed in a thematical section; and (b) a short summary of what is at full length presented in the thematical sections. If these conditions are not met—like in article ‘Free Syrian Army’ before today—the article is ill-structured, or in plain English chaotic, I believe. Therefore, I’ve started with copying correct information from the old sentences [2,3,4,5,9,10,11 and 16] in the old lead section to existing or new subsections 1.1, 1.2, etc. or to new section 7. This has two advantages: (1) The lead section can at some points now be kept shorter (just the ‘main features’ of FSA for readers perhaps totally unacquainted with FSA) because the longer versions of all events are preserved in the thematical sections; (2) After today, the summary in the lead can be changed without risking to lose information from the complete article.

I’ve also organized subsections 1.1 and 1.2: all information about 29July2011 now concentrated in section 1.2 (’Formation’), all earlier events in section 1.1 (‘Background’). Section 1.3 (‘Expansion’) had grown very long, 1.4 was rather short. After adding all information I found about period August2011–2014 (as specified below, but also copied from Syrian Civil War#Free Syrian Army), I’ve reorganized that into new subsections 1.3 until 1.8. Information on desertions without certain connections with FSA I have replaced to section 1.1(‘Background of desertions’).

B. Revising the lead section

The lead section in the old version counted 22 sentences, which I’ll indicate here with their number and one of their first significant words (for example: [2,Composed]; [6,Wall]; [13,throughout]). I’ll also refer to reference sources with the numbers they had in the old version, for example source 26(Turkish Weekly,Oct.2011) in old sentence [8], etc. Here, I’ll explain exactly what I’ve done with the information conveyed in each of those 22 old sentences, and why.

  • [1,Free]: Nothing of that old first sentence was accounted for in the two given old ref sources 11 and 12. To make a clear, sourced and verifiable start of the article, I have combined how three rather reliable sources (Wall Street Journal 5Oct2011, Joshua Landis 29Jul2011, Joseph Holliday March2012) define the FSA, and formulated that in the new first three sentences of the lead section. Those sources call FSA ‘a group of defected soldiers’ etc. Perhaps FSA are also an ‘insurgent organization’, but I see no source saying that, and it is not for Wikipedia to invent and stick such judging labels. If the now removed unsourced contentions of the old first sentence can after all be sourced, and seem relevant enough, of course someone can add them again somewhere in the article.
  • [2,Composed] and [3,Riad]: Of course, the formation of the FSA in July2011 is important, but after having copied all correct details from old sentences [2] and [3] to section 1.2(‘Formation,July2011’), I don’t think all those details still need to be told also in the lead—lead sections must be concise. (‘Volunteers’ from sentence [2] is not mentioned in the given ref source.)
  • [4,coordinated]: I’ve copied this information to sections 1.3(‘August–Dec.2011’) and 1.6(‘July–Dec.2012’), but consider them crucial enough to also have them stay in the lead (new sentence 8).
  • [5,major]: I’ve copied this information to section 1.6(July–Dec.2012), but consider it not relevant for the lead, because Idris was succeeded in Feb2014 by al-Bashir. Instead, I’ve added to the lead a sentence on al-Bashir being the incumbent Chief of Staff (new sentence 13).
  • [6,Wall]: That story of Idris fled to Doha was the next day corrected by Wall Street Journal, which probably made that affair less alarming. Therefore, I’ve completed that story and placed it in new subsection 1.7 and suppose it is no longer crucial to have it in the lead section.
  • [7,stated]: This is incorrect, because section 1.2(‘Formation’) sums up a whole range of goals of FSA: protecting protesters, achieve dignity, etc. etc. etc. So, I propose to just delete this old sentence [7] from the article.
  • [8,claimed]: Source 26 (Turkish Weekly) says, that FSA said that a majority of FSA is Sunni and a small minority (Shiite) Alawi. That seems relevant enough to me, so I’ve added that to the lead (new sentence 6). As for an FSA spokesman stating that the conflict is “not a sectarian issue”: as I’ve argued on this Talk page (section 21, 11Sep2014): if we have no one contending ‘the conflict is sectarian’ and we therefore don’t know what that means, I see no reason to mention this ‘denying’ statement of FSA; anyway, the statement is not about FSA but about the conflict, so if it is relevant—what I doubt—it should probably be in article Syrian Civil War, not here.
  • [9,merged]: The last seven words (‘main opposition army…’) were unsourced; I’ve replaced them with: ‘Western observers like The Wall Street Journal considered the FSA since then the main military defectors group’ (new sentence 4).
  • [10,defectors] and [11,prior]: Defections are relevant as background of formation and existence of FSA, but we should not suggest that every deserter is member of FSA. I’ve corrected the statements and placed them in section 1.1(‘Background’).
  • [12,actual]: I don’t see why Wikipedia should say that it has no information on some subject—it seems insinuating to do so. What we do know is the estimation from Dec2011 in old source 32(AlJazeera) of between 1,000 and 25,000 men, so let’s say that in the lead (new sentence 5). Source 33(NYT) speaks not of FSA but of a total of defectors; I’ve replaced that to section 1.1 (Background of desertions).
  • [13,14,15:throughout,northwest,concentration]: Combining these into one sentence makes them a dozen words shorter (new sentence 9). (If, however, that information is outdated, please move it into the thematical sections while adding the correct years.)
  • [16,Ki-moon]: That assertion was added in Wikipedia in May 2012. I’ve corrected and moved it to section 1.5(March–June2012) and assume it to be no longer relevant enough for the lead.
  • [17,Sunni]: Sources 42 and 41 say: ‘Some Druze fought in FSA units, some FSA units are led by Druze’; since Druze is a religion, I’ve coupled these facts to the remark from old source 26 about Sunnis and Alawites, now in new sentence 6. Source 40 says: ‘a Palestinian rebel commander in the Yarmouk enclave in southern Damascus in 2012 considered his rebel brigade to be part of FSA’ (new sentence 7). However, old source 38 doesn’t say that any Kurds were members of FSA, and source 39 is irretrievable.
  • [18,moderate]: Given ref source 43(pbs.org) doesn’t speak of FSA, so I’ve removed that sentence. Involvement of the U.S. is however expressed in new sentence 11 in the lead.
  • [19,proxy]: Given source 43(pbs.org) doesn’t say FSA is a proxy. Involvement of the U.S. is however expressed in new sentence 11 in the lead.
  • [20,recent]: Given source 44(The National) speaks of ‘rebels’ and U.S. anti-tank rockets but doesn’t say those rebels are FSA. Involvement of the U.S. is however expressed in new sentence 11 in the lead.
  • [21,stark]:
    • I read in source 45(DailyBeast,2013): ‘Locals near the Turkish border complained in November 2013 that, in contrast with Jabhat al-Nusra, the groups aligned with FSA were becoming increasingly corrupt.’ I’ve placed that in section 1.7. If we consider it very relevant, we can summarize it into the lead section also.
    • I read in source 46(Ammonnews,2013): ‘A Salafist-jihadist leader in Jordan contended that irreconcilable differences exist between FSA and other Sunni militias fighting in Syria.’ I’ve placed that in a new section 7(‘Rivals and allies’). I don’t yet see how we can summarize that into the lead section, nor why we should.
    • I read in source 47(guardian,2013): ‘Between July 2012 and July 2013, ill-discipline and infighting weakened the FSA. Meanwhile, jihadist groups with many foreigners entered northern Syria and became more effective than FSA. On 11 July 2013, an FSA oficer was assassinated by such a jihadist group, north of Latakia.’ I’ve placed that in sections 1.6 and 1.7 and have placed a summary of it in the lead (new sentence 10).
    • Old sentence [21] speaks also of some ‘contrast’ leading to some ‘rift’. I can’t find any source saying that, so we shouldn’t write that in our article.
  • [22,maintains]: Source 44(The National) does not make that assertion; I’ve deleted that sentence.
  • Two additions to the lead section: Section ‘Free Syrian Army’ from article ‘Syrian Civil War’ had, until this morning, extensive information on aspects that were totally not covered in its so-called ‘main article: Free Syrian Army’. After having moved those informations to this now truly ‘main article’ (in its sections 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8), I considered two of those newly added aspects important enough to also mention them, shortly summarized, in the lead section:
    • The US funneling $123 million aid through the FSA leader, April 2013 (new lead sentence 11, long version in section 1.7);
    • FSA starting negotiations with the Syrian government, August 2013(new lead sentence 12, long version in section 1.7).

C. Thematical sections

  • In section 1.1(Background), I’ve made corrections to express that the reports of early desertions etc. are speculative, not certain; and I’ve scrapped the old first, unsourced sentence.
  • Old section 6 (Operations) spoke of FSA’s strength, 20,000 in Dec2011 and 40,000 in June2012. Firstly, that was off-topic in that section. Secondly, the 40,000 was incorrect, the CNN video speaks of “opposition forces”, not of FSA. I’ve corrected that and replaced it into the section 1.5(March–June2012); the ’20,000’ were not mentioned in the source. Considering the old section 6(Operations) giving an overview of how and where FSA operated in successive phases of the Syrian conflict, I see no reason why this should not simply be integrated into section 2: ‘History’ (of FSA). Therefore, I’ve cancelled that section and replaced all sourced information from it into the subsections 1.3(‘August–Dec.2011’) and 1.6(July–Dec.2012).
  • Section 2 (Strategy): I’ve corrected the first part of the first sentence, by looking in the given source.

D. Infobox

Infobox Free Syrian Army said: “strength 40,000–50,000 (Dec.2013)”, referring to three sources. Those (old numbered) sources 4(Independent,2013) and 5(Clearing House) say nothing of strength of FSA but say that Islamic Front(!) is 40,000–50,000 strong; source 6(WSJ) is inaccessible. Therefore, I’ve removed that unsourced contention of 40,000–50,000 and replaced it with FSA’s (sourced) strength in Dec.2011. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of two edits 13 October 2014

  • (edit 19:11) Source BusinessT12Sep2014 leaves the sources claiming FSA to be involved in an agreement with ISIL anonymous. That makes this unreliable information. I can agree to mention it in section 1.8‘History,2014’, on the condition that our wording makes clear that this information is, for the moment, unreliable. Unreliable as it is, we should not yet mention it also in section 7’Rivals and allies’, I believe.
  • (edit 19:12) Source guardian8May2013 speaks not of al-Nusra fighting alongside FSA, but reports on FSA fighters going over to Nusra. That info seems best located in section 1.7’History,2013’. While it does not bear on rivals(meaning anti-Assad groups fighting each other) or allies(meaning anti-Assad groups cooperating), I think it should not (also) be placed in section 7’Rivals and allies’. --Corriebertus (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Corrections, 1Oct.2014

Nulla Taciti on 26Sept2014 removed from the lead section a statement about FSA being weakened and jihadist groups with many foreigners entering northern Syria and becoming more effective than FSA. That information however—except the ‘many foreigners’ which I’ll leave out in the revised edition—is taken from the mentioned source, guardian12July2013, sometimes literally, sometimes paraphrased.

  • (A) Does NT object to paraphrasing: FSA was “blighted by ill-discipline…” as: FSA was ‘weakened by ill-discipline…’, as is formulated in sections 1.6 and 1.7? Then please let him say so, and propose a better wording. Did he object to summarizing that last phrase into: FSA was ‘weakened’, as was formulated in the lead section?
  • (B) Does NT object to the paraphrasing: ‘jihadist groups between July 2012 and July 2013 have become the most effective fighting force in the land’ as: ‘jihadist groups between July 2012 and July 2013 became more effective than FSA’? Then please let him say so, and propose a better wording.
  • (C) If NT wants to remove statements from an article that are properly taken from a given ref source—like: ‘jihadist groups entering northern Syria’ from source guardian12July2013—we’d like to hear from him why he wants to remove them.

NT on 26Sept2014 also added information to the lead, about losing ground to opposition factions, U.S. providing weapons, good relations with Islamic factions, etc., that he pretends to come from certain mentioned sources but does not come from those sources:

  • (D) source 26(guardian12July2013) says nothing about any ‘other opposition factions’ nor about FSA ‘losing ground’ to anyone at all;
  • (E) old source 28(pbs,26May2014) speaks not at all of FSA;
  • (F) old source 29(The National,6May2014) says nothing about U.S. giving weapons to FSA and nothing about “good relations” of FSA with any other party or group or faction.

Adding info to an article and pretending it comes from a given ref source when it does not come from that source would be deceit, I guess.

  • (G) To prevent possible misunderstandings, I’ve extended in the lead: ‘FSA weakened’ into: ‘ill-discipline and infighting weakened FSA’, as was already the text in sections 1.6 and 1.7. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I actually have no problem with the edits you have made. The problem was, someone had removed several excellent references from the lead (Frontline, The National, etc.) and peppered the article with a terrible and highly opinionated Dutch reference that was:
a) In Dutch not English
b) Not even online and apparately from a print newspaper?
It is entirely possible that I confused the information attributed to each source, but the information was in fact in all the sources combined. It was quite a task resurrecting these sources from previous versions of the article, so I apologize from any mistakes made. Nulla Taciti (talk) 00:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Also I'm not sure why you deleted these refs wholesale from the article when you could have added them to the 2014 section which is quite sparse and lacking major developments (the refs where from 2014) Nulla Taciti (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@Nulla Taciti: Thanks for reacting. I understand the problem of that Dutch quality newspaper (on print, indeed), and I’ve not tried to introduce those facts again in this article. The ‘someone’ who had removed “excellent[??] references” from the lead was perhaps also me, in an edit on 25Sept2014. I then explained exactly why I removed stuff, usually I did that because the source didn’t match with the ‘excerpt’ of it in this article (= deceit, again).
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘adding wholesale deleted information to the 2014 section’. If I find something that is only placed in a wrong section, I usually move it to a correct section (like with my new edits today, 13Oct2014). Ofcourse, you and everybody else can go on adding correct information with correct ref sources to every section you want. I just tend to be strict on ‘information’ that is not really underpinned with a source—we shouldn’t do that nor allow others to do that, in articles concerning an ongoing war. --Corriebertus (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Official Funding From Outside Nations

This has just hit the news about an hour ago but the US and other Arab nations unspecified in this news artical are now officially funding the free syrian army and the artical should be updated based on if this is fact or not. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.3.139.24 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 2 April 2012

Syrian Turkmens [4],Al-Qaeda in Syria targets Turkmen minority [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.219.29 (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

News

not sure whether this information relates specifically to the FSA, because it consists of many groups, but it's an important fact.

US-trained Syrian rebels give equipment to al-Qaeda group: http://www.euronews.com/2015/09/26/us-trained-syrian-rebels-gives-equipment-to-al-qaeda-group/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.252.229.15 (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Russia

[bbc say] "Members of the Free Syrian Army, seen as moderate forces, have been visiting Moscow in a sign that there may be room for discussion. B". Can someone clarify and update the article? - üser:Altenmann >t 08:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Article outdated, summary confusing doesn't mention FSA existence in doubt

The summary of this article is confusing and repetitive.

OTOH, many non-US sources (Russian, arabic countries, see lks in the Wiki article) claim FSA does not exist anymore or at least in the way it was thought to be. This is info of enormous relevance and should therefore be included in the summary, not hidden somewhere in section 11 or after ten thousand words. The summary is too long, suspicious in a way it seems someone wants to hide this info.

Boina verde 1980 (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This POV is shared by a very small minority and it is therefore an extreme view. It should be mentioned in the article, but not in the opening paragraph. Some people think that the September 11 attacks were done by the CIA. However, this opinion is not mentioned in the opening paragraph of that article. The minority view is based on 4 sources. Two of them are the opinion of one person: journalist Robert Fisk. This journalist is well known for his biased views. As you can read in the Wikipedia article about him, he “is a pacifist and has never voted.”
The third source is the foreign minister of Russia, which is fighting alongside the Syrian government. The 4th source is the opinion of a journalist from International Business Times, which is not an authority on the subject. Moreover they had to admit that the article contained an enormous mistake. You can read at the bottom of the article: “Clarification: A quote in this story stated that the Levant Front will officially become a part of al-Nusra in three months. It is the other way around. Jarrah said al-Nusra members will become a part of the Levant Front.” So the article lacks credibility.
All in all, this opinion represents WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia policy says: “To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability.” Therefore this opinion should not be in the opening paragraph. Tradediatalk 14:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Missing part in editing

All the beginning of this article is missing from the editing site — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.199.17 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Its using the very typical U.S. propaganda way of writing articles in wiki of counter-terrorism.

This can be a forum for free speech

Who said ist not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.199.17 (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Groups belonging to the "Free Syrian Army"

Jarabulus Brigade Al-Qassas Army Dawn of Freedom Brigades Liwa Thuwwar al-Raqqa The Revolutionary Army

These groups which formed the core of the Euphrates Volcano are now part of the Syrian Democratic Force and are fighting against the "Free Syrian Army", Al Qaeda and other Islamist rebel groups. They should be removed. Also because some of the these groups do not exist anymore, because they merged into the Revolutionary Army (Jaysh al-Thuwar) and Jaysh al-Thuwar is part of the Syrian Democratic Force and not the Free Syrian Army. 83.93.56.252 (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

"Decline" versus "Conspiracy", and scare quotes

Decline or conspiracy?

This article currently has a section devoted to whether the FSA at this point is a meaningful military organization in the Syrian Civil War, apparently the topic of much speculation. In this edit, Nulla Taciti changed the title of the section to "Conspiracy Theories." The term isn't used in the article once, is obviously an editorial dismissal of the content, and violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR. On the other hand, the section title I'd inserted, "decline," is also not used in the article. I thought the word was well justified given the content in the section: "...a mosaic of factions and is now largely ineffectual... extreme Islamist groups growing by the day... the FSA is an army in name only... " However, many commentators are also saying it was never a major organized fighting force.

Neutrophiles's edit here attempts to resolve the disagreement by titling the section, "Questioning of actual existence." That is an accurate title, but also clumsy. If anyone has any comments on the above issue or if they can propose a better name, feel free to do so here. -Darouet (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Scare quotes

In this edit, Nulla Taciti returned scare quotes to the phrase "senior military officials", explaining, "actually quoting an assertion in the article." It is painful to have to explain this but Nulla Taciti may not be a native speaker of English, so I'll do my best. Per WP:QUOTE#Recommended use of quotations and WP:Manual_of_Style#Point_of_view, quotes should be used either to identify and represent particular and possibly controversial points of view, or to provide readers a "unique phrase or term" from an author, but never to misuse original language to imply doubt where it was not intended. In this case, the term "senior military official" is neither unique nor contested: the journalist is simply reporting the nature of their source. The quotes therefore add editorial skepticism or sarcasm. I'm making a post at the WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard in case anybody is confused about this. -Darouet (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Scrubbing info about international support for Syrian rebels

Despite some improvements, this series of edits by Corriebertus also removed some well referenced information on foreign support for Syrian rebel groups, with occasionally mistaken or misleading edit summaries. A few points. These edits:

  • changed "US-backed rebels" to "rebels," explaining, "US backed is an assumption." It's not an assumption, it's in the references provided (BBC,Fox News, which you left intact. Corrie, did you read the referenced articles before making this change? Why would you assume they're not US backed when references say they are?
  • removed a description of Turkey's support for rebel forces as "too vague," instead of proposing better language for a statement that is well known and was well supported by the PBS reference: "Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan jumped to the defense of the Syrian opposition in the name of democracy and to help cultivate a favorable relationship with whatever government would take the place of Assad... Uncontrollable militias and other hardline fighters are among those battling Assad, and Turkish citizens — particularly Shiite Turks — don’t want to be involved."
  • removed a note that in 2012 the Saudis and other Gulf states discussed recognizing the FSA, with the explanation, "thinking of recognizing does not count as International support." In this framework the historical record of how the Saudis viewed the FSA favorably and came to support them cannot be described, because this history is not the itself "support." That is not the case: such a discussion is well within the WP:SCOPE of an article about that support. Furthermore, Corriebertus should have decided to replace the reference with one dating to the same period and stating that the Saudis had already signed off on sending weapons to rebel groups.

I'll repair those errors, and am otherwise thankful for the improvements. -Darouet (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Syrian regime and ISIS oil

The very last sentence of the article states: "Just as within regime held areas (the Assad regime buys 40% of all ISIS oil),[235] opposition held areas are also supplied by ISIL with oil.[236]" The energyfuse.org source cited doesn't actually make that claim. It says ISIS "exports very little oil" overall and mentions circumstantial evidence showing the regime may buy oil from ISIS in unknown quantities. The FT source also doesn't mention the FSA explicitly. I propose the sentence be reworded into something like: "Opposition-held areas, as well as regime-held areas, are said to be supplied with oil smuggled from ISIS-controlled oil fields.[235][236]" (But is it really relevant to the section on "Questioning of actual existence" of the FSA?). 49.237.244.79 (talk) 16:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Free Syrian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:14, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No doubt you have only good intentions here, but I have no idea what you exactly are talking about, or asking us (or me). The language and terms are rather (too) technical for me. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

How many soldiers and units are or were in the FSA?

@Corriebertus: I think we should treat the claim that the FSA as it originally existed has 35,000 soldiers with scrutiny. That number comes from This Al-Monitor article that interviews "Syrian analyst Sinan Hatahet from the Istanbul-based think tank Omran Dirasat." The article describes FSA gains in northern and southern Syria associated with offensives actually led by the Army of Conquest and the Southern Front of the Free Syrian Army, and joined by al-Nusra. The article also interviews someone within the Southern Front who speaks about the FSA as if they are themselves in it. I think it's therefore reasonable to conclude that the force numbers being described aren't simply describing the FSA which is the subject of this article, but FSA fighters in these coalitions more broadly. -Darouet (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

That Turkish think tank claims FSA in Dec 2015 to count 35,000 fighters; thus, it is now written in our §History--2015. I don't consider it my job at this moment to assess how (un)reliable that claim is. Do you object to us writing it in § History - 2015? People have to ask themselves whether they should believe the claim or not, as they always must with such claims, in Wikipedia and elsewhere in the world. I tend to agree with you that there's a good chance that the number of 35,000 pertains to the real-genuine-FSA plus (FSA) fighters fighting in other 'coalitions more broadly'. --Corriebertus (talk) 17:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
OK, sounds good. -Darouet (talk) 22:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Making a new subheading for each subheading in "International Support"

Corrie, some of the changes you've made are great, but creating a new subheading for every single sentence in "International Support" is confusing and unhelpful to the reader. I've reorganized the sentences so that they're now chronological, and removed the subheadings. This change makes a coherent narrative. -Darouet (talk) 15:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@ Darouet: That is perhaps a matter of taste. You’ve arranged it chronological, mixing weapons deliveries, finances, training, non-military aid, and moral support, resulting in a (rather long) story of 333 words.
With your newly added info, I now read that the Saudis delivered TOW missiles to FSA in 2015. But you have to read a terribly long account before you get to that. I’d say that weapons deliveries in a war are significant and crucial, and should therefore be mentioned more prominently, separately, in this article and in this section – not mixed and diffused with all those other types of international support. --Corriebertus (talk) 20:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The rebels are first known to have received these missiles in early 2014 - and the amount of missiles delivered increased dramatically in 2015. Because these operations are all clandestine it is difficult to really know what weaponry was delivered when. -Darouet (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Who has supported the FSA?

@Corriebertus: re this edit, one of the cited articles from McClatchy [6] states, "The United States announced in April that it would funnel $123 million in nonlethal aid through his group, an operation that’s already begun. At the same time, U.S. allies, including Qatar and Saudi Arabia, agreed at a meeting in Istanbul that all lethal aid destined for the rebels would pass first to Idriss."

This WashPo article reports "Syrian rebels battling the regime of President Bashar al-Assad have begun receiving significantly more and better weapons in recent weeks, an effort paid for by Persian Gulf nations and coordinated in part by the United States... Opposition activists who two months ago said the rebels were running out of ammunition said this week that the flow of weapons — most still bought on the black market in neighboring countries or from elements of the Syrian military — has significantly increased after a decision by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other gulf states to provide millions of dollars in funding each month... Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood also said it has opened its own supply channel to the rebels, using resources from wealthy private individuals and money from gulf states, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, said Mulham al-Drobi, a member of the Brotherhood’s executive committee." The article names only one rebel fighting force: "The Free Syrian Army, the opposition military force."

This WashPo article writes, "For a long time, Western and Arab states supported the Free Syrian Army not only with training but also with weapons and other materiel. The Islamic State commander, Abu Yusaf, added that members of the Free Syrian Army who had received training — from the United States, Turkey and Arab military officers at an American base in Southern Turkey — have now joined the Islamic State."

We should discuss these sources and evaluate others. I think that sources demonstrate the FSA has been backed by these countries. -Darouet (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I consider it my (first) job now to update and improve this FSA article, by correctly presenting claims and information from sources which we consider reasonably reliable. As soon as we have a feeling that such a source might nevertheless be biased or wrong, we just have to make clear in our article from which source the information comes. The reader then must decide whether he believes the information, or not. If you find a source clearly saying some country (Qatar etc etc) is supporting FSA in any way, simply add it in our article.
If you want, you may always in your edit summary refer to a longer motivation of the edit on this talk page. I do that quite often, myself. But don’t expect people to go looking for a long motivation on Talk page if you don’t clearly tell them to do so. --Corriebertus (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the way in which you have tried to carefully attribute the source of information in your edits and I'll strive to lengthen my edit summaries when editing here. -Darouet (talk) 07:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Free Syrian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Is the Southern Front Islamist?

@Corriebertus: you changed our description of the Southern Front from "Islamist" to "secular," explaining that our article Southern Front of the Free Syrian Army maintains the group is secular. However, I see that the article cites this perfectly reliable source whose description doesn't support the "secular" appellation.

Specifically, "The Southern Front is an alliance of 54 rebel groups, from secularist to moderate religious fighters, that operates in and around Daraa Province. It’s linked to and funded by the Military Operations Center(MOC) in Amman, which is run by the US and its allies. The Southern Front is crucial, locally and internationally, when it comes to the Syrian conflict and represents the type of partner that the US and its allies seek in Syria for the following reasons: 1) it’s credible and militarily capable enough to take and hold territories; 2) it’s willing to be committed to a future Syria that is secular, nationalist, inclusive, and respects minority rights; 3) it’s the only non-hardline Islamist rebel group in control of a substantial part of Syria and rejects extremism publically."

The article also notes that while al-Nusra and the Southern Front are declared enemies, they have been fighting in an alliance together. -Darouet (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

All right: the S Front ranges from secular to moderate religious, as source Böll Stiftung says. (If I find time, I’ll alter it in our article, accordingly.) But that means also, that it is NOT Islamist. If two sources write the Sth Front are “non-hardline Islamist”, I think they mean to say: ‘they are not hardline Islamist’. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Corrie - that isn't the correct interpretation of "non-hardline Islamist." The phrase means that a group is Islamist (wants to create a society based on the principles of Islam), but is "non-hardline", i.e. not ISIS or al-Nusra. -Darouet (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I know that the phrase literally says: the group is Islamist but not hard-line-Islamist. That's why I suggested, already on 28Feb, that the source poorly uses the English language. I contend that they (and also the Böll Stiftung) really try to say: the Sth Front is not hard-line-Islamist (and they might be just not Islamist at all--as the context seems to suggest: ranging from secularist to moderate religious). I admit, it's just my guess, but I believe it makes sense... --Corriebertus (talk) 11:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The coalition includes Islamic groups like the "Martyrs of Islam" and the "Dawn of Islam" brigades and has carried out joint operations with al-Nusra and Jaish al-Fatah. I do not believe that Böll Stiftung made a mistake. -Darouet (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

The lead section

@Darouet: On 1 March 2016 you added 6 sentences to the lead. 5 of them were taken from section 2(History): (1) ‘FSA main defectors group 2011’; (2) ‘infighting 2012’; (3) ‘Chief al-Bashir 2014’; (4) ‘Syriac coalition 2014’; (5)’ “..dissipated” 2015’. One sentence was copied from section 9(Religious/ethnic character): ‘Sunni..Druze..’ I wonder, why those six need to be copied to the lead. Your motivation firstly states that they “fit in the lead” but that is no motivation: every possible, conceivable sentence would ‘fit in the lead’. Secondly you say they are “more important” than FSA’s selfdescription – presumably referring to the opening sentence of the article. How is ‘being important’ (which is by the way a personal opinion) a reason to copy a statement, that is already in the main body of the article, to the lead of the article? The article has hundreds of sentences—can everybody tomorrow, or the day after, choose a sentence from say section 5 or section 10 and copy it to the lead because he is fond of that sentence or considers it ‘more important’ than some other sentence? Sorry, that’s not the idea of an encyclopedia. As for that opening sentence: an article has to start with defining its subject, and our opening sentence is indeed partly based on FSA’s selfdescription. If you’d prefer a different starting sentence, then let’s hear your proposal. --Corriebertus (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your question Corrie. I am traveling and cannot respond right away. I do consider foreign support to be a crucial component of the lead. Maybe while I'm traveling, if you have time, you can write a little more about what you think should and should not be in the lead, and why? Then I can also think about your points. Best, -Darouet (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@Corriebertus: I restored a good deal of the lead, which you had removed to other portions of the article on the argument that the lead was too long. MOS:LEAD states that a lead should reflect major topics covered in the article, but the lead after you removed content only contained the FSA's early self-description, and the force estimate of a Turkish think tank that you yourself stated probably doesn't really describe the FSA alone. Your removal left no lead information on:
  • The FSA's religious/ethnic makeup (important because the civil war involves religious and ethnic struggle),
  • The FSA's political decisions, and military decline with the rise of Islamist coalitions, and
  • Foreign financial and arms support from regional Sunni powers and the United States.
When I restored the original lead I also shortened it to address your concern about length, and this left the lead at only 2 paragraphs - one half the maximum length recommended by the MOS. I did not restore the controversial soldier count that is covered elsewhere. The information is only "copied" insofar as you had taken these sentences - originally in the lead - and left them throughout the article.
I consider the FSA's demographic composition, who has financed and armed it, and a basic history of its politics, military struggle and decline to be the most important components of the lead and any brief, neutral description. If you disagree, I'd like to know why. Many of your edits to the article have been positive, and I appreciate your work and genuinely want to know what you think. -Darouet (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Answering Darouet:

  • In general: if an article has a thematical section on, say, ‘History’, or ‘International support’ (or whatever topic), and some editor wants to add information to the article of which it is easy to see that that information concerns (mainly) ‘History’ (or any topic that already has its own section), then he should first add that information to that correct thematical section.
  • Only after that, we should decide whether it should also be placed in the lead section. It is from the point of view of making a surveyable, ‘good’, encyclopedia, incorrect to place thematical information only in the lead and neglect to place it also in the proper thematical section – because that would result in thematical sections with lacunas, gaps.
  • Page MOS:LEAD states that a lead section should contain a ‘short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic [= article]’. That sounds simple, but for articles concerning a war that can be rather difficult, when decisions about what would be ‘most important’ in such article turn into copies-on-Internet of the war itself that is being fought ‘on the ground’. Strong disagreements about such lead sections often seem to result in lead sections getting longer and longer, making them “intimidating, difficult to read, and causing the reader to lose interest halfway” (as MOS:LEAD puts it), which we must avoid.
    That is one of the reasons why I prefer the lead of a war-article to be very, very short (though perhaps a bit longer than I ventured in This edit, 1 March, on article FSA).

You (Darouet) have given following suggestions for what might be important enough to be in the lead of article FSA:

  1. basic history of FSA’s politics, struggles, and decline;
  2. foreign support in arms and finances;
  3. demographic composition (relig./ethn. makeup).

I agree on the first two, but disagree on the third.

Ad 1. For ‘most relevant facts on FSA’s history’, I would select these facts:

  1. the ‘Free Syrian Army’ aims to bring down the Assad government (which is presently in the first lead sentence and can stay that way);
  2. FSA’s strength has always been unclear;
  3. Allegations are that the US and Turkey have been training the FSA, and that the US and Saudi Arabia have sent the FSA weapons;
  4. Allegedly, in 2013 the al-Nusra Front attracted fighters from FSA, and in 2014 also Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL); but other sources stressed in 2015 that the FSA was ‘still strong’;
  5. (as for FSA’s struggles: surprisingly enough, I find no such information at all in section ‘History’…)
  6. (as for FSA’s politics: that would tend to be a too extensive paragraph for the lead, I expect. I would advise and ask you, to first make a nice and good (new) section on that topic. Perhaps, when that is achieved, it will be possible to summarize that into one sentence for the lead. We don’t want a cluttered and “intimidating” lead section, do we?)
  7. (Those sentences 2, 3 and 4 I’ve given here above, give a better, more complete, more relevant summary of the article then the present lead sentences 2–7, but perhaps just one summarizing sentence can be added on political alignments of FSA.)

Ad 2. On ‘Foreign support’: see fact nr. 3 here above.

Ad 3. Demography, religion: that seems to me not relevant enough for the lead. Originally, the Syrian Civil War is not a religious or ethnic struggle. Certain parties involved have tried to make it so, and have ofcourse propagated that view. We should not adopt that propaganda by promoting FSA’s religious/ethnic makeup as highly essential. (It is now in section 9 in the article, because someone once added that information in the article, and there’s no reason to remove it.) --Corriebertus (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

If no further discussion follows, I'll assume everyone agrees with my latest posted opinion here. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@Corriebertus: I'd like to reply but please allow a little time, I'm very busy at the moment. I appreciate your time writing out your specific concerns here. -Darouet (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
All right, I understand that you are busy at the moment, that can happen, I respect that. I'm not sure, though, how I'll react on this situation, in a couple or days from now (or sooner). Perhaps, I'll want to improve the article (lead section), without further delay. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

User Corriebertus just vandalised the allies of FSA section, removed referenced sources etc

In an attempt to promote FSA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.26.188 (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Trading arms with ISIL

Even if ‘ISIL leadership’ (who exactly?) has stated as Todenhöfer reports (see section 14.4: Commerce with ISIL), it is very little guarantee that FSA traded with ISIL:

  1. Any ISIL spokesman could be interested in blackening FSA with such statements/insinuations;
  2. While this report reaches us only through the narration of Todenhöfer, we have very little or no certainty that the rebels that ISIL (purportedly) traded with were indeed the genuine FSA led by al-Bashir/Idris/al-Asaad.

Therefore, I've moved it from pretending/suggesting certainty in old section 5 ('Rivals, allies, trade partners') to a more appropriate section: '...insinuations over FSA'. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21568761-rebel-opposition-steadily-gaining-diplomatic-and-military-ground-bad
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Free_Syrian_Army/Archive_2&oldid=1074831050"