Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 20

PKK and Fahman Hussein

PKK's leader Fahman Hussein is Bashar Al-Assad's school friend, and Fahman is also a doctor. Bashar Al-Assad regime is arming PKK rebels against Turkey, has always been doing so. (Abdullah Ocalan's base was in Syria before he was captured) and this intensified more since Turkey helped the Syrian opposition. --Camoka4 (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I posted this apparently, just after Camoka did, so I just moved it under this section...
I was looking at the article history a bit earlier and noticed that somebody removed the Kurdistan Workers' Party as a belligerent, presumably due to it not being sourced, but another editor, who has been quite prominent in editing on this article, re-added it, still without a source. I did not remove it because I have no interest in getting into an edit war, and it's pretty clear to me that there's a double standard here. There is a continuous debate on Hezbollah and Iranian involvement (I happen to believe that they are involved, but again, I want no part of an edit war), but not a word over the inclusion of the PKK on the rebel side, with no source? (for the record, I'm not disputing involvement of other extremist groups [Al Qaeda in Iraq, et. al.] with the rebels)
To the contrary, I had actually read before that the PKK claimed it would fight on Al Assad's side, especially if Turkey was to get more heavily involved (I do not recall the source, so I am not going to actually suggest that the PKK be added to the other side though).
Again though, can we take a closer look at PKK involvement though If somebody can provide a valid source, I will gladly stand down.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


Here's a source (though it's about four months old) mentioning the PKK hedging its bets with Assad:
Kurds Remain on the Sideline of Syria’s Uprising - New York Times - April 17, 2012
"[...] A wild card in all this is the Kurdistan Workers Party, known as the P.K.K., a well-armed and well-trained militia that has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States. In Syria the group has allied itself with the Assad government, which could use it to stir up tensions along the Turkish border, should Mr. Assad see the need.
In the past, Syria armed and protected the P.K.K. in its long campaign against Turkey, though that assistance cooled when relations between the countries began improving little more than a decade ago. The group has already threatened to turn all Kurdish areas in the region into a “war zone” if Turkey crosses the border to intervene in the Syrian crisis. [...]"
Hope this clears things up. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hezbollah fighters again again

Could whoever keeps re adding Hezbollah to the infobox based on biased and unreliable sources please stop? Same with Iranian fighters. Furthermore, Hezbollah has downright rejected involvement, not that they would gain anything from making such denials: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2012/Mar-05/165529-hezbollah-rejects-claim-of-involvement-in-syria.ashx#axzz24elGpzGV FunkMonk (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

How about this: we can talk about removing them if the United States, Germany, and other countries that haven't sent troops to Syria are removed from the infobox. I mean, Iranian and Hezbollah fighters are in Syria, so that's still giving up way more factual ground to your side than you rightly merit, but I'm getting really sick of seeing the rebel side in this infobox look like the entire United Nations is fighting on their side when they're losing practically every major engagement due to government air power. It's horribly deceptive. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Uh, so it seems like you have some knowledge which the rest of us don't. What is your source for "Iranian and Hezbollah fighters are in Syria"? FunkMonk (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
robert fisk mentions Hezbollah fighters in this piece, [1] (and wall sreet journal 10 August says it gives advice training etc [2]), - and though he is pretty much anti-rebel far as I can tell, robert fisk says here the syrian army despite how it and pov would like it to appear, isn't squeaky clean - [3]- according to the regime Shabiha don't exist - everything is deniable -people believe according to their prejudices , believe in atrocities committed by the other side, not in atrocities committed by their side - as george orwell pointed out - facts have little to do with it Sayerslle (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, a Robert Fisk article quoting rumours is not enough for inclusion in the infobox. And Fisk is by no means anti-rebel, he has close ties with the March 14 movement of Lebanon. And in any case, it has been pretty clear these 18 months that the side that produces most rumours and lies is the opposition side. Everything the regime has claimed has immediately been denied by the West and rebels, yet has been confirmed several months later. And the regime doesn't deny he existence of "shabiha", they simply don't mention them. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
"Everything the regime has claimed has immediately been denied by the West and rebels, yet has been confirmed several months later." You really arent very pov are ya?? and 'the west and the rebels' - really subtle analysis, this. beyond bad - cretinous pov imo. Sayerslle (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I could give dozens of examples (latest fabrication is the Farouq Sharaa defection and that "Maher Assad lost his legs"), but it is irrelevant, this is not a discussion forum. Bottom line is, it is unconfirmed that Hezbollah or Iranian fighters are present in Syria, therefore they should be removed from the infobox, but could be mentioned in the main text. And is it really that hard to use "civil" language (core Wikipedia principle)? You could get blocked again, so well, just continue, lol. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Everything the regime says is confirmed - Houla? You said "Everything the regime has claimed has immediately been denied by the West and rebels, yet has been confirmed several months later." npov is a core wikipedia principle is it not? you seem to have a very set pov to me, but youre right this isnt a discussion forum - "reality is the master" funkmonk. Sayerslle (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Not to go off track, but could you then point me to some government claims about the insurgents that have turned out blatantly false? Muslim Brotherhood domination? Foreign fighters? Al-Qaeda presence? Suicide bombers? Western/Gulf support? Sectarian motives? Zionist support? Killing of civilians and unarmed prisoners? All pretty much confirmed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
And this is from fisk talking to the foreign minister yesterday . asked about Shabiha, fisk writes - "And the infamous Shabiha militia blamed for atrocities in the countryside? Walid Muallem doesn't believe in them. There might be local unarmed people defending their property from armed groups, he says. But pro-regime, paid militiamen? Never. No war crimes charges against the Syrian Foreign Minister, then." Walid doesnt believe in them funkmonk. he didnt say ' oh yeah like funkmonk says, there out there all right

, but we don't mention them'..- he denies they xist . not a forum. adios amigo. Sayerslle (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

From that, it only seems he doesn't believe they're paid, but that he believes there are armed pro-regime groups. Is there any proof they are paid anyway? FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
In the interview he says "There might be local unarmed people.." . do you believe the regime incapable of lying about this? oh yeah, "Everything the regime says is confirmed" - they never lie. oh, I do see. silly me.Sayerslle (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Calm down. No one said anyone was "incapable of lying", but he does seem to contradict himself a bit, rather than lying, as I don't see how an unarmed man can defend himself from heavily armed men. In any case, this is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is that there is no proof that Hezbollah are fighting in Syria (other than claims by biased sources), so including them in the infobox is practically libel. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Free Syrian Army and use of quotations in "terrorist"

The use of quotations in surrounding the word "terrorist" is POV. I think by most signifcant standards and definitions, the FSA would be fair to categorize as a terrorist organization. Their abuses or torture and beheadings of unarmed defensless people as well as their intimidation of even anti-Assad demonstartors is documented by Human Rights Watch, as I have shown in the links I put below (sorry relatively new to this, I think I posted the previous topic incorrectly)

Therefor to maintain the nuetral POV, I suggest the FSA be described as a terrorist organization, without putting quotation marks, ie "terrorist", calling that factual statement as a invalid claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.112.197 (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the international law, they are all criminals and even taking POWs is considered a war crime. It is close to terrorist, however, in order to prevent any edit warring it's good to use quotation marks. --Wüstenfuchs 17:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The terrorism they don’t like is called ‘terrorism’ and the terrorism they do like, because they carry it out or their allies carry it out, is called ‘counter-terrorism’. Noam Chomsky- talking about the Nazis I think, but its always the same kind of thingSayerslle (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's all relative, so we shouldn't use "terrorist" anywhere~on Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Not at all. Some groups or people, like al-Qaeda, or Breivik, are internationally recognized as terrorists by the international community. The FSA, however, is not, and writing that they are terrorists would be a serious serious breach of neutrality. --Activism1234 21:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
You also need to consider that the FSA is very large and is not that centralized, so the actions of some members don't necessarily reflect the actions of others, just like the actions of soldiers in any army or peacekeepers in any country don't reflect the country, army, or peacekeeping force as a whole, unless the director of said organization specifically orders terrorist attacks it'd be different. --Activism1234 21:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the Wikipedia article describing Breivik and al Qaeda as terrorists, only that others have described them as such. The articles don't say "x is a terrorist". They say "x has been declared a terrorist by y". FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
True, but terrorist acts like what Breivik did are in fact described as terrorist attacks. --Activism1234 23:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The word terrorist in quotes or not in quotes shouldn't be used to describe the FSA or the Syrian government. The word carries too much ideological baggage. The use of terrorism can in fact describe the actions of both sides of the conflict. The indiscriminate shelling by the government of opposition held neighborhoods is in fact terrorizing large segments of the Syrian population. The government is using terror through torture, indiscriminate violence and group punishment to suppress those parts of the population that disagree with it. The Syrian government is in fact generally considered a police state like the former Eastern European countries where the use of state terror through surveillance, arbitrary arrest and torture was used to control the population.

It's important to note that utilizing the word terrorist in quotes doesn't in fact sanitize the word. A mental association is still created with the notion of terrorist even when it is placed in quotes. It is in fact completely non-neutral to use the word either with quotes or not quotes. The constant usage of the term in fact merely utilizes techniques described by propagandists of World War II:

But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success. -"War Propaganda", in volume 1, chapter 6 of Mein Kampf (1925), by Adolf Hitler.

Usage of neutral language in Wikipedia is very important and contributors should err on the side of positive rather than negative. Guest2625 (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with this, that it shouldn't be included at all. --Activism1234 23:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I am using a new Smart phone here and my laptop is being repaired, so I am trying to figure out how to post here. Please look at the top of the discussion threads at "Free Syrian Army human rights abuses" for some links. (I haven't learned how to copy and paste on this stupid phone). Human rights Watch, has condemned their abuses, if we are to consider them a credible source that is not pro-Assad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.112.197 (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Ah, ok, he's how to paste the links:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2017801064_syria21.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0416/Syrian-activists-to-rebels-Give-us-our-revolution-back

Now perhaps terrorist seems POV, but at the very least we should mention the FSA's tortures, kidnapings of unarmed and defensless pro-Assad civilians and ethnic minorities. As bad as Assad is, there are many anti-Assad Syrians who also have a dislike of the FSA and it is important to show there aren't just two sides to this. This lack of nuance in covering the conflict is not unlike the support of the Mujihadeen against the Afghan Communists, or the support for the Libyan rebels against Gaddafi then ended up lynching a number of Black Libyans. Life is not Star Wars with good guys and bad guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.112.197 (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly; recommend blanket removal of all instances of the term. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
And just to clarify, I say the same in regards to the Syrian government if it's written there. It's not appropriate for this article. --Activism1234 23:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As stated above, the term terrorist carries a very strong connotation. Unless a reliable source describes them as terrorists, the FSA should be called more neutral terms. Furthermore, the only major sources that seems to be calling the FSA a terrorist organization is the Syrian government (which is obviously not credible).Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What you guys agreed on is actually a policy. See WP:TERRORIST. Mohamed CJ (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Redundant countries in infobox

Usually only direct belligerents and exceptional supporting states/organizations are listed. Not any humanitarian supporter deserves to be put in the infobox per WP:UNDUE and the issue of the exceptional claim for this very violent conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As you well know (because it is explicitly stated after each of those countries in the infobox) they're NOT just "any humanitarian supporter". They are actually militarily involved, with the US having CIA operatives on the ground on the Turkey-Syria border and Germany having a warship off the Syrian coast. That's NOT giving undue weight and it's NOT and exceptional claim. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
"Moscow has been a close ally of Syria since the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and has regularly supplied its military in conflicts since. Along with its modest garrison at Tartus, Russia has military officers in Syria under the auspices of its embassy and civilian technical advisers working irregularly on Russian-made air defense systems and repairing airplanes and helicopters in Syria," New York Times in June. 92.13.84.32 (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The Western nations providing non-lethal military equipment and intelligence should definitely be listed because they are clearly getting involved in the conflict.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to pretend Sweden, Spain, and Switzerland were belligerents during World War II. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
^^^ ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with Taal and Future. EkoGraf (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right, greyshark09. Trouble is, this article is a propaganda piece that is owned by pov warriors. The solution would be for you to go to those who designed the conflict infobox. The specifics about what a conflict infobox should (and should not) contain has been already worked out - though you will probably need to do some digging to find it. For example, "Belligerents" has a specific meaning (there was A LOT of discussion to work out that specific meaning in discussions related to America's invasion of Iraq), and the content that you are objecting to in this article's conflict infobox falls well outside the permitted meaning. To be classed as a "belligerent" you have to have soldiers or militia fighting on the ground, and those soldiers or militia have to be acting under the direct control of a nation state or be part of some other NOTABLE recognised body or organisation that is capable of exerting that control. Countries providing just "Economic or military support" are not belligerents for conflict infobox purposes (though such support can of course be mentioned in the body of the article). Meowy 16:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and delete that content on the grounds that is is a misuse of the infobox. It is not a matter for individual article consensus or discussion - the whole purpose of an infobox is to provide a standardised delivery of preselected content over many articles. Meowy 16:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
For once, I agree with Meowy. There might be a case for the likes of Turkey and Qatar if it can be proven they are sending military advisers to Syria as Iran has been doing (as the United States did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan). But when we have to include a parenthetical complex sentence full of qualifiers after half the entries in the infobox, I think we should take that as a sign we're a bit too quick to stuff the infobox full of trivia and minutia rather than reflecting the actual reality on the ground. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't think even "military advisors" can count for the infobox unless there are thousands of them and they are really just being called "advisors" to disguise the true scale of an outside country's involvement. The Turkish "advisors" maybe number a couple of hundred at most and it is uncertain how much the Turkish government knows about them, or whether they are even there under the instructions of the Turkish government. Meowy 19:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
To see what is meant by "belligerent" for the purpose of infoboxes, I suggest looking at this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict#Request_to_change_.22Belligerant.22_back_to_.22Combatant.22 and this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_74#Military_Conflict_Infobox_terminology_.26_POV-pushing Meowy 19:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
On the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_military_conflict page, the parameters section still uses the older "combatants" term rather than the more recently decided on "beligerents" one, but it is still fairly clear about what should be there: "...the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated..." and "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict" Meowy 19:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
The US and Europeans have been on the infobox for a while. Stop deleting them until we get a consensus here.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
You can't put countries you like, in violation of long standing understandings on the structure of infoboxes.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Military advisors on the ground can sometimes be counted as "supporting" sides, in case of notability. Soviet Union for example provided a very significant support during the Angola civil war, loosing dozens of "advisors" as casualties on the ground. I guess Iran is clearly a supporting side for this matter and so is Hizbullah, who openly supports the Syrian Government. The case for Turkey, Qatar and Saudia is a matter of controversy, however i tend not to oppose those (some sources suggest active support of rebels) as much as inclusion of USA, Russia, France, Germany and Canada, who for sure have no forces or logistics on the ground (their entire support is largely declarational).Greyshark09 (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

For goodness's sake, Meowy, use some common sense here. The U.S., and the Europeans are clearly taking an active role in the conflict by providing military support. Military support is not the same as belligerent, but it's still important and deserves mention in the infobox.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You just said the problem though, it is not the same as a belligerent therefore it is WP:POV to have it placed there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the Angolan Civil War. It's rated as a good article, and it contains parties providing military support. Again, military support is important and deserves mention in the infobox, especially for this article. It's not POV if it's obvious that the US and the others are supporting the rebels. Plenty of news sources suggest this.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I see the wording "Supported by:" rather than "Economic and military support:" I suppose if we just change the wording then they can be allowed, when you go into details things become complex and I think thats the case here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It used to say "supported by" but that was deemed too vague. People started adding China because they felt veto'ing a UNSC resolution qualified as "support". Hence the wording "economic and military support". - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but the section header in the infobox says "belligerents". If a country is not a belligerent, then it should not be there, regardless of the form of support it provides. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
From the article belligerent: "A belligerent (lat. bellum gerere, "to wage war") is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner". I'd say sending over CIA operatives (USA) or an intelligence-gathering warship (Germany) qualify as "acting in a hostile manner". - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Again...agree with Future and Taal. Those countries are all, per the Wikipedia term belligerent, acting in a hostile manner towards Syria by sending money, weapons, communications equipment, advisors and spotters (Germans). EkoGraf (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Belligerent or combatant should be a NOTABLE hostile party/country/organization, who openly engage is hostile activities (money or sales is very hard to verify and is highly UNDUE). We can also add supporters, which clearly sent assistance to either side like Iran, Hizbullah to Syrian Government and Turkey, Saudia and Qatar to the opposition (not sure if all are notable supporters, but let's agree on that).Greyshark09 (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
AP Press, 22 August has this news, printed in the Christian Science Monitor:

" Moscow; Russia accused Western powers Wednesday of "openly instigating" Syrian opposition groups to take up arms in their fight to unseat President Bashar Assad.Moscow has been Syria's key protector throughout the 17-month uprising that has evolved into a full-blown civil war, shielding Assad's regime from international sanctions and providing it with weapons despite an international outcry." it should accuse the western powers of "openly arming" rather than "openly instigating" - taal, ekograf, funkmonk, why are russia pussyfooting around with their language. also it misrepresents Russias neutrality. makes you sick. Sayerslle (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That pussyfooting is called diplomacy, and if you don't approve of it (it makes you sick) that's your personal opinion, which I respect and don't go into. EkoGraf (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

EkoGraf, when you add countries to the infobox, it doesn't make it "status quo". You shall be reverted until consensus is reached for inclusion of additional countries.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The countries were already in the infobox for a month before this discussion was opened. They were not added during the discussion. Thus a status quo is to leave them in there until it is resolved. And as far as I see it, you are the only one who have been removing them, while, besides me, two other editors have also been reverting you. EkoGraf (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh really??? Has no one reverted US and Britain additions and has no one reverted Canada, France, Germany and all other invented supporters in the last couple of days??? Were France, Germany, and Canada even mentioned a month ago? I really expected a more serious answer from such an experienced editor as you are. This is a serious WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a question but is there a reason why the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France have detailed info on how they are helping the opposition? I see no other country listed that gives those kind of details. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not for adding those details beside the name of the supporting countries if it is all properly referenced/sourced. The readers can see the details in the sources. EkoGraf (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

But presenting countries like the US and Germany as if they were the same as the FSA or the Syrian government is horribly undue WP:WEIGHT. The fact that disclaimers are needed shows that maybe including them as combatants is not a good idea. We could make a simple bluelink in the box that says Non-combat support from several other countries and link it to the section in the article describing such support. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I got this from a DEBKA file news report 30 August - I think its RS? "Syrian President Bashar Assad was notified that Moscow was halting military aid to his army - except for intelligence updates and advice on logistics from Russian military advisers;" so do we get to put Russia in the infobox ? [37][4] - the infobox is Assadian/Press tv-ish in my eyes Sayerslle (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know in which way it is implied they are the same as the FSA, it is simply noted they present economic and military support. In any case, all of those countries are actively engaging in anti-Syrian government activities with the sole purpose of bringing down the Syrian government. And per Wikipedia's definition of the word beligerent, which says in the infobox, they fit that definition. EkoGraf (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Debka is not reliable WP:RS.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the Wikipedian who said that we don't put all the information as how the countries are helping the opposition. There are sources to which the readers can resort to. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I like Lothar's idea. Also, if we're going to consider Canada a belligerent (for God's sake, people), why not Russia? It's actually sent warships and (noncombat) troops to Syria. That's way more involvement than whatever Canada is doing. And why not Libya, for that matter? And hey, Egypt just criticized the Syrian government, too. Maybe it should count as a belligerent. (Seriously though, Russia and Libya really should count if we're being so inclusive.) Anyway, Lothar's suggestion of bluelinking a new page a la Allies of World War II seems like a beyond-fair compromise. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

the intelligence copoperation between Russia and Syria - is a facet of a complex strategic relationship - Mikhail Fradkov was in the delegation Russia sent on a mission to Assad , ostensibly to persuade Assad to implement democratic reforms - yet Russia doesnt appear - but Canada does - as you say, for Gods sake people Sayerslle (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War is not the common term used to refer to the events

I am not debating if the events are technically a civil war, but this is not the term used common to search for or describe the events.

A more common term is Syrian insurgency or revolution.

Would love to learn from Wikipedians the criteria that Wikipedia recommends for selecting names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nafdik (talk • contribs) 16:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Categories

Shouldn't we add, for instance, Category:Wars involving Canada, Category:Wars involving the United Kingdom, and like that? Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Iranian commanders in the infobox

Can somebody move Mohammad Ali Jafari (IRGC Commander-in-Chief) and Qasem Soleimani (Quds Force Commander) from the infobox? Their unsourced addition seems rather arbitrary and is also an original research. --37.244.215.89 (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed them several times. Without sources, they should be removed on sight. FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Why are they still there? --77.237.113.211 (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Because biased editors keep inserting their OR POV. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
That sucks. --77.237.113.211 (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I've removed it again. Feel free to revert it if anyone inserts it again. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe it is now time to add Iranian government leaders/commanders in the info box. Such additions should be taken with care and based on reasonable sources. This belief comes as Iran formerly declares its military maneuvers within the SAR. Such Iranian commanders now have a major effect on the conflict, and should be added to provide readers with a complete overview of the conflict. I propose that such Iranian Commanders/leaders consist of individuals within the Iranian state apparatus with overall command responsibility (as defined and upheld under the IV Geneva Convention) (i.e. Head Of State, Defense Minister and/or other). Please kindly let me know your thoughts. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper (talk • contribs) 10:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

is this map reliable

the person who made the mape of the battle of aleppo had made other maps including a map for the situation in eastern syria, is this map reliable.

here is the map http://twitpic.com/amdp68 Alhanuty (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Free Syrian Army Human rights abuses

It does not seem to mention that the Free Syrian Army has committed torture and terrorist car bombings. Human rights Watch has condemned these. I think the putting "terrorist" in quotes is POV, because the Free Syrian Army uses terrorist tactics. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2017801064_syria21.html

Also, even some protestors have been harassed by the FSA, also of importance. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0416/Syrian-activists-to-rebels-Give-us-our-revolution-back— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.93.30 (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, before reading your comment I included the phrase and the reference to HRW for both things: Free Syrian Army commiting crimes and Syrian Defense Forces commiting abuses: it was instantly erased. I only hope this was done by an editor with a rational purpose, sigh. This article should mention the views of both side in a civil war if it wants to achieve a resemblance of neutrality. Although I know I should assume good faith, it is been edited mercilessly by people in favor of one side: we all know that Wikipedia is just another arm being used by sides in the conflict. --Ciroa (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Split into two articles: "Syrian Uprising" and "Syrian civil war"?

While there is little doubt that the current conflict in Syria has slipped into a state of civil war, the term "civil war" does not represent accurately the events during the first few months, which are better described as a "popular uprising." Of course, the civil war emerged as a product of the uprising, but the uprising and the civil war are not the exactly the same thing. A civil war is a "war" between armed groups, whereas an uprising is a series of demonstrations, strikes, sit-ins, street battles between protesters and police, etc., and this is how it was in the first few months. Indeed, the uprising continues until this moment, as demonstrations and other forms of popular and civil resistance still exist. What I suggest is to split this article into two articles, one is titled "The Syrian Uprising 2011" (or something like that), that focuses on the first few months of the conflict, and another one titles "Syrian civil war", which takes the conflict after it became militarized and qualified to be labelled as "civil war". Taleb3elm (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes this is an obviously needed reform and will also aid to solve the article's overlongness which has been tagged as such for some time already.Oxycut (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Russia as a supporter

Russia supports Syria, I did hear of three Russian warships that might be deployed there. Something like that. 142.197.8.220 (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

[citation needed] -- The Anome (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
As The Anome points out citations are needed to state that russia is supporting the regime in the war. What is needed a a clear and reliable source stating in what consists the alledged support of Russia's. I would like to warn against sources like CNN, Reuters, BBC and Al-Jazeera are all based in countries where government and public opinion opposes the current regime. Chiton (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the problem with brutal dictatorships, they don't have many supporters. :-P That said, CNN, Reuters, the BBC are all Reliable Sources and you'll have a very steep uphill climb to show that their reporting on news items is biased. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Tartus, a city where Russians have their base. Like Americans have their bases in Japan, Africa, Ramstein in Germany etc, so Russians have their bases. They sent Russian ships into the Russian base. If they are selling, I repeat, selling, not giving arms to the Syrian government it doesn't mean they are supporting them in the conflict. If it would be so, then any country that has a trade contract with Syria could be listed as their supporter, and that means the whole Asia (except Arab league) and the large majority of Africa and South America. So please... --Wustenfuchs 01:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
The Russian support citations are all sorts of horrible. Two of the three citations are blog posts and one is from RT which doesnt state Russia support Syria, merely that Russia will complete its contracts that it has with Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smalltime0 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wording for France in the infobox

I not going to suggest that France, or any other country for that matter, be removed, but I noticed that it currently says "non-weapon military supplies". That wording seems a little awkward. Couldn't it just be changed to "nonlethal military supplies"? The al-Arabiya source cited actually uses the "nonlethal" term, as well. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. EkoGraf (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-lethal is a misnomer. Communication equipment, for instance, can prove very lethal if it's used to coordinate attacks. "Non-weapon military supplies" is a valid term, see e.g. [5]. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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)

I'm posting this over at Free Syrian Army. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Iranian support

Iran only gives military support to the Assad government, so in the infobox there should be "Supported by:" before Iran as it was until somebody removed it without an explanation. --93.142.217.78 (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There was a citation before about Iranian (IRGC) troops being sent to Syria, as confirmed by the organization, but it appears to have conveniently disappeared in all the back-and-forth changes to the infobox--L1A1 FAL (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
actually, nevermind, there is still one there that confirms Iranian on-the-ground involvement:
Syrian army being aided by Iranian forces - guardian.co.uk
This defines them as a combatant rather than just a supporter.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
There was a discussion about this few months ago. Technically, Iran is not self-confirmed combatant because there is no such Iranian claim present and there is no way to verify whether there really was one. IIRC, this story originated from some Israeli news site, so, having hateful relationship between Iran and Israel in mind, this should be taken with a grain of salt.
Until Iranian military self-confirms itself as a combatant (and does not deny or untraceably remove such self-confirmation), Iran is not a self-confirmed combatant. --93.142.217.78 (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
You clearly did not read the source I listed from the article. The Israeli one is more recent, and this source predates it (from May 2012). Here are the first couple of paragraphs:
A senior commander in Iran's Revolutionary Guards has admitted that Iranian forces are operating in Syria in support of Bashar al-Assad's regime.
Ismail Gha'ani, the deputy head of Iran's Quds force, the arm of the Revolutionary Guards tasked with overseas operations, said in an interview with the semi-official Isna news agency: "If the Islamic republic was not present in Syria, the massacre of people would have happened on a much larger scale."
He is of course referring to abuses perpetrated by the rebels, rather than those by the current government. In any case, however, the source supports Iran's inclusion in the infobox.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Israeli source is from May 2012. Also, there was a discussion about it if anyone's interested. --93.136.179.26 (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Iran is almost certainly a supporting party of Syrian government (arms, advisors, maybe even some troops), but correct for now it doesn't openly engage in war against the Syrian opposition. It should be under "supported by" title.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
So, having this in mind, will Iran be put under "supported by" title? --78.0.218.151 (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually Greyshark, you are wrong, they are directly fighting the rebels according to Iranian officials themselves. Sopher99 (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
No. Iran has stated it is fighting "every aspect of a war" in Syria. It's a combatant. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Source? --78.0.218.151 (talk) 09:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I've already provided it on this page at least once, and I believe it's one of the refs on the article itself. -Kudzu1 (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
It should be in the infobox. Currently provided sources only state that Iran is giving a military support and one which states that there was allegedly something on one Iranian website (and content of this source (28 May 2012) originates from the Israeli source (27 May 2012), see discussion above and an archived discussion about it). --78.0.218.151 (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

POV article

the article is currently pov and biased because hezbollah and iran are included in the infobox, this should be removed or ill have to tag the article. Baboon43 (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is it a problem for Iran and Hezbollah to be in the infobox, but not for the US, Turkey, etc to be in it? Jeancey (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Above Turkey it says supported by but doesnt say that for Iran and Hezbollah. The infobox says iran and hezbollah are active on the ground which is a lie. Baboon43 (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
looks to me like you're the one who's trying to add POV to the article now mr.Baboon43. All data in the infobox is well-sourced and documented. If that contradicts your own personal beliefs of the situation on the ground then that's your own opinion. Iran and Hezbollah are very well on the ground, and in the case they are not then they are still very much involved in sending strategists and equipment, etc. Please do not try to change the article based on your beliefs of how things should be vs. how they actually are. Moester101 (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
well i added support and it was removed so i have tagged it for POV. Baboon43 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
"Why is it a problem for Iran and Hezbollah to be in the infobox" Uh, perhaps because there is no proof that they are, and because they deny it themselves? This goes at least for Hezbollah. FunkMonk (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
There is no actual proof that Turkey is supplying weapons to FSA and Turkey denies it, yet we have it because we go with WP:VNT. Hezbollah involvement is well sourced, just as is Turkish military aid to rebels. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit war/flame war

Not much that I would like to mention except for the fact that this article is starting to become a battle ground between the two sides. For example, in just the last 24 hours there were over 50 edits to the article...WTF? This is starting to get out of hand, starting to look like an edit war to me. Any suggestions on how we can improve the process of the article's editing? Or should we just put a "full protection" block for a couple of weeks until things cool down? Moester101 (talk) 06:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know from where counted the 50+ edits in 24 hours, but in any case this will probably stay for long time till the conflict is over. People have strong feelings about the topic, which -IMO- is the main reason behind any possible edit wars. Mohamed CJ (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Canada

Why has it been removed? It was well sourced. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

because looking at the refs (2 refs, same article ) -it finishes up with the detail that - "No money has yet been delivered to Canadian Relief for Syria as the organization must first prepare a detailed plan for how it will be spent." so the $2 million of medical supplies have not even reached the opposition, and may never, but that is still no bar to shoving in canada as more relevant to the conflict than Putin/Russia. really the editing of the pov madhouse . On Putin's neutrality more evidence emerged yesterday "with the Kremlin-friendly broadcaster Russia Today," it is the first time Mr Putin has spoken to the media since his inauguration in May. In a short clip posted on Russia Today's website, Mr Putin appeared to castigate Western policy in Syria.

"You might just as well unlock Guantanamo, arm all of its inmates, and bring them to Syria to do the fighting. They're practically the same kind of people," Mr Putin said, presumably referring to the Free Syrian Army. Russia has, along with China, been the main international backer of the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during the conflict." Thats in mainstream media, from 'The Independent', which wp should reflect not the assad-ian politics of a clique. Sayerslle (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Canada is well sourced that... it did nothing related to the Syrian civil war, except some cloudy announcement of humanitarian funding in the future. Complete nonsense to put Canada in the infobox. Let's just put all the countries who voted against Syria in the UN and get done with it. Greyshark09 (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thats a good idea include china and russia under supported by..also include israeli and u.s support for rebels http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=280826 Baboon43 (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Gosh did you read the story? "Syria claims US, Israel, Qatar, Saudi Arabia supporting rebels." Yeah sorry no, not putting it under support... --Activism1234 19:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sectarianism

Editor Sopher99 keep adding questionable and poorly sourced information from http://world.time.com/2012/03/01/eyewitness-from-homs-an-alawite-refugee-warns-of-sectarian-war-in-syria/. The Time Magazine is reliable, but, Who is Mohammed? Who is Ali? They dont qualify as RS! It could be anyone talking over the phone. Dafranca (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Checked source, they are witnesses. This entire article, whether based pro assad or opposition accounts, stems from witnesses. Your argument is not valid. I7laseral (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
So long as a RS quotes witnesses, it is reliable source. If an Unreliable source quotes witnesses, we don't put it in. Since this is Times magazene, it is perfectly reasonable to put them in. If you are complaining about the lack of a surname, it is perfectly normal for activists and witnesses to withhold their lastnames or have a false name to avoid punishment from security forces. I7laseral (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The times is like the RT of the u.s. Baboon43 (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Anyone who has watched the 5th Season of the Wire knows that sources with no last name and no photo are highly dubious. 68.81.112.197 (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Adan
TV shows don't influence how Wikipedia works. If Time got duped, then that's their problem they'll have to figure out. For now, Wikipedia works by taking Times as a reliable source and attributing any statements to that source. --Activism1234 20:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
It seens that I7laseral does not keep Neutral point of view, all his edits are anti-assad. He is also have received disruptive editing notice for this article. For me a witnesses that can not be verified is not RS. How the Times Magazine know "mohammed" is not lying? It clear as water that it is not a RS because it can not be proved. Dafranca (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dafranca (talk • contribs) 22:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia may work one way, but in the world of journalism I happen to know from first hand experiance reports constantly invent sources and quotes to make more sensationalism ad sell more papers or even promote a political agenda. Knowing this, mysterious sources with no last names or having any photo with just too perfect quotes are highly dubious. 68.81.112.197 (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Adan

Minor comment

Is there another picture that can be used for the infobox? The current montage appears to show the war entirely from the standpoint of the opposition. I like the idea of a montage, but can we include, say, a picture of Assad or his father, or something from the Syrian military, or somesuch so that it's not all "the rebels and their cause?" It's not a big deal, but it does give the opening of the article a pro-opposition tone. 150.148.0.65 (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't give that tone. From March 2011 - Jan 2012 it was all about protesters being killed. The other three picture only show FSA and destruction from shelling. Nothing being implied here either. Sopher99 (talk) 19:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The three pictures are FSA, FSA, FSA, crimes of the government (at least, that's what we're told by the caption). Contrast WWII, where the opening photomontage is Allies, Allies, Axis, Allies, Axis, Allies. It takes two sides to have a war, and the image has the opportunity to show both but only shows one. That, plainly stated, is biased. The thing looks like an FSA recruiting poster, to be honest ("You can join the crowds, join the defectors, or join the militia, and here's your justification!"). 150.148.0.65 (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Find a free use picture of the Syrian military in action from the past year and a half and we'll talk. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
There are a couple of images within the article itself that might be used. Showing a pro-Assad rally instead of an anti-Assad rally (or alongside?) would provide some balance. There are two pro-Assad rally pictures in one section, which is a little redundant, so moving one of them to the lead montage seems like an option. The riot police picture also seems a valid option, even if it is less dramatic. Another option would be to simply have a single lead picture (e.g. Wikipedia's article on the American Civil War) rather than the montage, though that would be limiting in the sense that the multiple pictures show multiple phases and dimensions of the conflict and a single image would be less informative, even if it were more neutral. 24.16.0.80 (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox image

I think the images in the infobox are themselves great but as a collage the overall image is highly unbalanced, from a neutral standpoint. Because three of the four images show the opposition (pro-FSA protest, FSA tank, FSA rocket man) and the fourth image is of a burning house hit by government artillery which was photographed by an opposition activist. I think at least one image of government troops should be presented in the collage. What does everyone think? EkoGraf (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, Okay, Okay. People in "minor comment" section were rioting about this as well. I changed the collage. Can people stop calling me a rebel recruiter now? Also, DanielUmel's suggestion is a good photo, but I'm not sure if we can use that due to copyright issues.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 21:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Iraqi Shiite fighters

The United States says it has credible intelligence that Iraqi Shiite fighters are in Syria on behalf of the regime. [6] -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

American "intelligence" about Iraqi (or any Middle Eastern) matters should never be taken at face value. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
In America we have what is called an Electoral Democracy. This means that Cheney and Rumsfeld no longer hold any post. I think we're safe with this one. Sopher99 (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
They obviously didn't make evidence up themselves, the same intelligence agencies that operate now did. FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
They did make the wmd evidence up themselves. CIA is run by people, not robots. Sopher99 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason why it shouldn't be included. Here's how we word it: "According to one US official, there have been reliable reports that...". ~Asarlaí 19:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Second this^^ Not that it should be any secret that Shi'ite Iraqis would be more sympathetic to Iranian interests (I.E. maintaining Assad's grip on power) after decades of suppression by a Sunni minority though...--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2012

Truth be told, I have seen many videos showing captured Mahdi army militants in the hands of FSA fighters. Not to mention, many Iraqi shi'ite clerics have called for a 'jihad' to save Bashar from the 'infidel' Sunnis. I have even seen some pictures from southern (Shi'ite) Iraq which show placards for the "Martyrdom" of Iraqi shi'a fighters who were killed in Syria. One thing though, most the evidence of this is in arabic articles/videos/pictures which are obsolete here, so whatever. Moester101 (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"Truth be told", Youtube videos are not evidence. FunkMonk (talk) 11:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have seen reports about Mahdi army operatives in Syria for more than a year, but so far most reliable sources are quite about it and are not going deep inside this issue. So I would wait till more reports pops out and than include it, not now. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Russia should not presented in the infobox

Russia is selling weapons to another country. Russia is a big weapon seller, they sell weapons to a large panel of countries across the world. It doesn't mean they are supporting one side. United States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey are giving weapons, intelligence, logistic to rebels for free. They are clearly helping them. This is not the case of Russia. It is very simple to understand and realize. --DanielUmel (talk) 07:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

My point also. Adding Russia is a clear example of POV pushing. I'm getting an impression that this is being done just to make some sort of a "balance"... One side supporting A, other supporting B. That's not the case here. --Wüstenfuchs 12:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Russia is supplying the government with weapons to be used in the war, intervening to block action against Syria at the United Nations, providing vocal support for the Syrian government's actions, and sending troops and warships to defend its "interests" in Syria at Tartus. Yet we don't want to include it even though we're all so excited to be able to put the United States in an infobox for the tremendous violence of...sending the rebels non-lethal supplies? Huge double standard. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
completely agree with Kudzu1, it seems to me that some editors here are starting to sound like official spokespersons of Syria's Foreign Ministry. Moester101 (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Insurgents fighting among themselves

As predicted: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/world/middleeast/killing-of-rebel-with-qaeda-links-opens-debate-on-syrian-opposition.html?_r=2&ref=middleeast FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

As predicted, the FSA are killing the Salifis/Alqaeda linked fighters. Thats why we put ---- between muhijideen and the Opposition, because they are not fighting together. Sopher99 (talk) 14:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
"the majority of fighters seem foreign jihadists"[citation needed] Temporal alliances are meaningless. MNLA and radical Islamists cooperated to take control of Azawad, but soon began fighting. War politics is less ideological, more strategic. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Jihadists joining the fight

See this Reuters article. Very useful, I'd recommend putting it as a sentence or two in the article somewhere. --Activism1234 21:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

If there is unrest in the Islamic world, you can be sure that jihadists will flock to it like vultures to a fresh kill. Foreign mujahideen are already listed in the infobox and have been there for quite some time now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I know, but I felt it interesting that these are also jihadists who are inspired by Mohammed Merah and al-Qaeda. --Activism1234 22:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Given that we have AQI in infobox (although my personal opinion that I will be discussing first with Eko as I had lot of discussion regarding this topic, is that al-Nusra is AQ arm in Syria) I don´t really see what are we missing in the article. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch

This is my third and last attempt to bring this to the attention of this page. I am not a regular contributer and so my previous comments may have been lost on this page due to poor placement. If by bringing this up again I have abused this page, I appologise in advance but I have received little acknowledgement on the main thrust of what I believe is a significant oversight.

This article does not mention the serious abuses of human rights by the Free Syrian Army documented by Human Rights Watch and media outlets. By the exclusion of this, I believe it gives a false characterization of what is happening. Please read and comment on the following two links and tell me if this information is relevant or not. Thank you. 

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2017801064_syria21.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0416/Syrian-activists-to-rebels-Give-us-our-revolution-back

68.81.112.197 (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Adan

Those articles are relevant and should be added to the article about the FSA and certain battles, which are mentioned in the articles... --Wüstenfuchs 18:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
How about the section "Human Rights Violations" of "Free Syrian Army"? 68.81.112.197 (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Adan
We don't even have a human rights violation of the Syrian army section. However we do have a section called human rights violations, which does in fact mention FSA rights violations. There's also a section on the FSA article anyway for that. Perhaps you guys should read the Syrian civil war Wikipedia article first before trying to determine what is and what isn't included in the article. Sopher99 (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I meant "or" not "of" but unfortunatley my computer is the shop and I am using a smart phone. The "f" and "r" are very close on this tiny pad, further evidenced by the other typo I made "Human Fights". I am sorry that it proved to be too difficult a task for you to figure out my meaning. I clearly wasn't a difficult task to have an attitude problem. I have rad the article. Last I checked I didn't see any citation of Human Right Watch with the FSA's violations, or even the phrase human rights abuses associated anywhere with them in the article. I saw no mention of their intimidation of anti-Assad non-violent activists or the executions of nonRpolice, non-military unarmed defenseless Assad loyalists. If I am mistaken, could you dirrect me to that portion of the article. If it is absent, then I believe it's nonRinclusion to be further evidence of the bais of the article. 68.81.112.197 (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Adan

Here is a more up to date article mentioning that parts of the Free Syrian Army have vowed to not torture, and then gone ahead and done so anyway.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/15/despite-pledge-syrian-rebels-continue-to-torture.html

Also a video of an unarmed handcuffed man being tortured by the FSA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l96KiRVlCac

I do think this article should make some mention of this. If there are no objections< I will make a small edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.112.197 (talk) 06:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

This really doesn't mean all that much. The people who made the pledge aren't the people who are then breaking it. It is the equivalent of the GOP saying it wouldn't raise taxes, then one GOP person voting to raise taxes. That wouldn't mean that the GOP as a whole broke it's pledge, especially if the one who broke it never signed the original pledge. Jeancey (talk) 07:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Even so, the article as I have said before, only seems to reference human rights abuses from the Syrian Army and not the FSA. To be balanced, some mention of these abuses, or that at least Human Rights Watch has issued a report condemning abuses on both sides, would be balanced and useful. Also, this is not a pledge about raising taxes, these are about crimes against humanity. One doesn't have to sign a pledge to be a war criminal or guilty of human rights violations 68.81.112.197 (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I was more referring to "parts of the Free Syrian Army have vowed to not torture, and then gone ahead and done so anyway." The parts that vowed to not torture aren't the same people who are then torturing. Mentioning the human rights abuses is fine, but implying that they claimed they wouldn't do it, and then did is incorrect. Jeancey (talk) 17:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I see. Fair enough.68.81.112.197 (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Greater Scrutiny for "Reliable Sources"

A lot of people question if the media is telling the truth, and rightfully so. Only a few years ago we were told in the Iraq War there were weapons of mass destruction, and that there were mass graves of Saddam's victims uncovered, only to find no WMDs and find those mass graves were caused by the water crisis and starvation as a result of the first Gulf War and sanctions. This is why I share with you the following link about the news media. Do not be overly concerned with the name of the website, watch the videos for youself and make your own judgements. 

http://new-power.org/2012/04/24/cnn-manufactures-news-in-syria/

All I suggest is that we please a healthy and fair amount of skepticism in using mainstream news reports. Sources that seem too vauge and too good to be true might in fact be Jason Blair-esque and ARE in fact too good to be true. 68.81.112.197 (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Adan

Now this is just laughable. We are supposed to listen to a communist revolutionary site as if it is RS? Especially using videos from Addounia and Russiatoday? Furthermore the media did not tell us there were wmds in Iraq. The media told us that Bush and his defense cabnit were telling us that there were wmds.I7laseral (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

If you didn't even watch the video, then don't bother to comment. You mind is like a parachute, it only works when it is open. If you'd watch the links, you would see delibrate fabrication and acting done for CNN news reports and it is no laughing matter. We don't even have to go back to Iraq. Look at Libya, there were allegations Gaddafi was imploying merchinaries, something that now Amnesty International and other admit they have found no proof of, but instead these rumors served as motivation for racial violence. Or how about reports from"reliable sources" that Russia was deploying troops to Syria which were false and an exageration of routine activity. When falsehood is accepted as unquestioned truth and those who expose that falsehood with irrefutable evidence are dismissed out of hand, we are in trouble. I maintain the links will hold up to any scrutiny, your objects and CNN, will not 68.81.112.197 (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Adan— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.112.197 (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I did watch the videos. And once again, it was edited footage by Addounia and Russia today, that wasn't even in English. You did not provide any evidence whatsoever. You once again fell back on to using Syrian state tv and Russia Today, especially from a communist revolutionary site. Laughable plain and simple. You are just another "anti imperialist" conspiracybuff. Very closed minded. I7laseral (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, you didn't watch them. I know because the first video has English subtitles and Anderson Cooper speaking at 3:45 to what I understand is English. You have now lied, and I don't see why I should continue to acknowledge you at this point. It is one thing to have your own views, but you crossed the line by lying. You have already exposed yourself as bais and not willing to even entertain scrutiny of pro-western sources. You have disqualified yourself from being taken seriously. If these were as laughable as you say, then you would have been able to wacth them and then try and refute them. You didn't even watch them. You also didn't make any mention of the third video, which is also dubious. I am only interested in what people have to say if they are willing to engage the material, not make ideological pronoucements as "evidence" in and of itself, ie, it's not mainstream Western and therefor automatically false. That is not a cogent argument. Some conventional new agencies have bad reportin (New Times and Jason Blair) and some non-convential reporting still gets good coverage. Do yourself a favor and stay away from personal attacks. You do not know me or my politics so it is not useful to point and scream "witch" and try to burn me because I offered some information that contradicts your view. 68.81.112.197 (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Adan
so Homs hasnt suffered really? [7]. if the point of the video was to make me question what is being said that is at all critical of Assad -it didnt personally - its was itself just ultra-dumb pro-Assad propaganda - 'lies-truth-fake-' blah blah - that doesnt mean one shouldnt try and be aware of what bias might be around the place - on the contrary - (CNNi was criticized recently for not showing a film they had made for them and spent a lot of money on, on the situation in Bahrain - probably because it showed the powerful in that country in a very bad light) - but if you think only the pro-Assad media is 100% reliable, 68.81.112.197, well, i personally think thats very wrong-headed. Sayerslle (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Listen Mr IP, all three videos are whack. The first one has Andersons's English, but then 6 minutes worth of Addounia edited footage that is in Arabic. The second Video is further stupid. The USA was in saudi Arabia, its a fact. John Jesco was only on the CNN crew for a year. That video segment was probably comedy, especially because he said "here is CNN's logo" on the missile. The Third video, Russia today - is well.. Russia Today. Nothing about what you put forth raises any question about reliable sources. All this confirms to me is that your a conspiracy nut.You didn't just offer me alternative views, you offered me a mesh of lame attempts by Addounia and RT to discredit Al jazeera, hosted on a communist revolutionary site. Am I the only one who finds that funny? I7laseral (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, not this again. If you have problems with Wikipedia guidelines, bring it to attention of administrator. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

What I find funny is how you don't see the irony of calling on a conspiracy nut (which is a personal attack and against Wikipedia policy, I hope) and then alledge an unedited video is an edited one and come up with all kinds of outlandish excuses ande explainations without a shred of proof and use ideology in and of itself as grounds for verification of truth or falsehood. With this line of thinking you'd be great working for the Bush Administration or CIA, which I am sure you'd say are reliable sources. 68.81.112.197 (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Why is Russia Today any less credible than BBC or CNN ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.118.173.112 (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Cry me a river. First I never called you a conspiracy nut, though I think that you are one. Second, if you want to present changes to basic wikipedia rules - WP:RS - bring it to attention of administrators. Users here cannot do anything about it. Third, I don´t care about your source, every year I tend to graveyard of my grandfather who was killed by communistic regime that your website loves so much and therefore I am not interested in a thing they have to say. Above that, it is unusable source even if it had a Jesus himself talking to masses. Wikipedia is not interested in truth. It is interested in verifiability per WP:VNT. Fourth and last point - RT is full of conspiracy nutbags, who believes that 9/11 was an inside job, that HAARP is a weather control device that is responsible for Haiti earthquake and most importantly it was identified as source with questionable reliability by administrator here WP:PUS. That is all. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Please, don't get hysterical. I quote you as writing "All this confirms to me is that your a conspiracy nut." I do believe for another time you have lied, suggesting you are perhaps a pathological liar. As far as "crying you a river" you must have a mighty high opinion of yourself to believe I care what you think. I am merely pointing out that you are likely in violation of Wikipedia's harassment policy as well as an unsavory character. However, your posts have also demonstrated that you may have insecurity issues by feeling the need to put others down rather than simply disagreeing, and perhaps you are also emotionally unstable. I don't see what the ideology of the site providing links has to do with CNN faking news reports, like American media has been known to do. Communism, like your dead grandfather, is a red hearing, that has nothing to do with anything about Syria or accurate reporting. If you feel it necessary to lecture people about the evils of Communism, and how they are anti-imperialist nutjobs, I suggest taking a trip to Vietnam, where the United States traveled half way around the world and killed over 4 million Vietnamese people, the majority of whom were civilians, many elderly, women and children, simply because the United States did not like the idea of anti-imperialism and Communism. Or perhaps you can pontificate to the families of the over a million Koreans killed in the Bodo League massacre by the South Korean puppets about how they should be grateful for the anti-communists imperialists who murdered their families. I am sure they would all be fascinated in what you have to say and teach to them.
However, none of that has to do with your fundamental inability to grasp logic. You simply have asserted that a news source was faked without any source or your own showing this. Your logic is flawed. It is based on an ideological outlook, not a substantive one. It would be like me saying, "I am a pagan, or a feminist, and I refuse to look at any information written by a Christian because Christians burned 50,000 women at the stake for being witches. Therefor, I reject the Christian Science Monitor, a leading paper in the world, as a source at all. Furthermore, without any evidence, I will now assert as fact, that everything the Christian Science Monitor writes is probably faked. I don't need sources or evidence for this. They are Christians that is enough of an explain." You sir, are beyond ridiculous. For the last time, please stop wasting my time with your blather and stop slobbering all over this section and allow more serious people to comment. Thank you. 24.238.93.30 (talk) 02:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Adan
First I am letting you know that I am reporting you for this. Second, above being what you described here, if you spent more time reading this thread than finding new insults on Google you would realize that that name at the end of every post is signature of the user and that it was not me who called you a conspiracy nut. See you on a ban list, soon. With worst regards, EllsworthSK (talk) 11:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
For what exactly is being reported? Your reasoning is not sound. The dismissal of a Communist website, who did not kill you grandfather and simply put together a few links is a red-hearing and has nothing to do with the CONTENT of the what is being shown, no more than one objecting to the Christian Science Monitor for the crusades or some such thing. Attack the messenger, ignore the message. Old tactic. The fact that you would exploit the death of your Grandfather to suppress the free expression of other news sources is sad. I am sorry for the error of not understanding how wikipedia sings users, etc, but I feel you then have taken the opportunity to slyly say the say the same thing anyway, so no apology is needed. I would only add that having a guest on a program does not automatically tie you with their views. I think most major cable news in the US has had say Ann Coulter as a guest, and she maintains there was a Communist plot to overthrow the US, and thus McCarthism was justified. She also called Aparthied justified because the opposition (black South Africans) were "animals" and even called to invade all Muslim countries and convert them to Christianity. That is whacky stuff, but I think we should distinguish giving airtime versus endorsement of views. If your only complaint about Russia Today is that they are government-funded (like BBC or PBS) or their guest list, neither seems to be particularly unique or relevant.24.238.93.30 (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Adan
For violation of WP:CIVIL, unfortunatelly you probably do not know what is general civility so I wont bother explaining no more. And I am dismissing unreliable source, very simple thing that I have written several times. You inability to comprehend something like that is not my problem, but yours. So keep it for yourself. As for the rest, start your own blog as I do not care, since it has nothing to do with topic on hand. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Where to begin... Where to begin...

Well for starters, the person who accused that ip of being a conspiracy nut is me - not EllsworthSK.

I don't put people down either. The only words that would come to anyone's heads when being presented with lunatic conspiracies and fringe presentations from propaganda mouthpiece media is conspiracy nut. It is not an insult to anyone's intelligence, it just provides the image that no matter how hard one tries to reason with them, they will continue to press on with their farcical views fanatically. It doesn't have to be loud, or hysterical - just radical. The word nut is used because nuts are things with hard shells - you can't get through to them easily.

Second You CSM analogy deals with semantics. Your comparison to the logic that I would associate past events with the current is false. I am not associating past records here, I am telling you the now and present. Right now Addounia and Russia Today are state controlled propaganda channels. I did not mention their history, or there future for that matter. I did not dissect the semantics of their name, or bring up stereotypes. I am telling blatantly the context of the situation regarding the sources that Ip was presenting.

This Wikipedia page was constructed by filtering the vague, farcial, unreliable, and biased media content out. Do not approach us with the flotsam we filtered out and say "Here is an alternative view". I7laseral (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I did confuse the one comment with the other. I am in fact new to Wikipedia. However, it's a moot point, because you've just done the same any way. In any case, I'm addressing both and all here anyway. Second of all, anything can be called a conspiracy or propaganda. What was embedded journalism but cheer-leading for the invasion and conquest effort? The fact that anyone who would challenge the pre-war case's validity of WMD in Iraq was called a nut. Did things like Iran-Contra happen? Were things like the Gulf of Tonkin lied about? Were things like the Mi Lai massacre covered up? Didn't Wikileaks blow the lid on many more purposeful cover ups? But yet you maintain to simply raise a question about being skeptically is somehow lunatic. No, to believe unquestioningly and blindly is insane. No one is using clips about 9/11 being an inside job or not, or HARP, just this clip, which you are constantly shifting focus from. It's a tactic called attacking the messenger to avoid dealing with the substance of the message. It is the oldest derailment in the book. Also, what you say of Russia Today could be said of the BBC or PBS. More importantly, the new millennium has shown wonderful expansion into private-funded propaganda. However, regardless of who carried the story, the footage is interesting in and of itself. the audio, what is being said and so on. It is still you who is basically alleging a fabrication with what evidence? The evidence that the views expressed on the station are "fringe", which is still a subjective term. One is not synonymous with the other. One is to say, they are not conventional, the other is to say they are outright liars and fabricators. If you have evidence of Russia today fabricating stories, then share it as evidence. On the other hand, I can cite time when CNN has deliberately lied int heir stories, and a number of other American media outlets. Rather than laundry list, the first I remembered was CNN reported in the Seattle protests of the WTO in 1999 that no rubber bullets were fired. Even when people called them to correct them, they ignored the testimonials people brought forth (plus their camera crew were there and saw it happening themselves). It was not until someone took the footage they got off a camcorder and posted the rubber bullets being fired that CNN HAD to change their story. I could give you a list for pages if that's what you want. But of course, that wouldn't matter because you don't operate on "truth" or even what's "verifiable" (um, verifiable comes from the Latin word "veritas" which means "truth", ie verdict, veracity, verifiable, etc). What you care about is normative. But I'm going to inform you, your normative isn't iron-clad but relative. Take a poll about what people think about say 9/11, or US intentions in Syria in the US, you'll get one result that has one side as normative and the other fringe. Open up that same poll to the world, you will likely find those percentages reversed.
Indeed, for years US mainstream media reported for example Al Qaeda was a real enemy army, that they very well may have sleeper cells around the country and the world, that they had intricate networks and headquarters in caves. They had "experts" and officials repeating these things, and that later Iraq had WMDs, etc. All of which were false. Al Qaeda never was an army, there were only a bunch of rouge financiers who only started using that name after they realized the Americans were using that to identify them. Even the BBC (which I suppose is state-controled propaganda) many years later ran a documentary, "The Power of Nightmares" showing how the whole idea of Al Qaeda was a deliberate exaggeration of the capabilities of the enemy forces much like what had been done throughout the Cold War (ie, Reagan claiming Nicaragua was three marching days from Texas, of repeated statistics showing the Soviets were three times or five times stronger than Western forces). And with each one of these lies we saw it handed to the media and disseminated to the people like propaganda.
Let's for a moment, put aside this evidence of CNN doctored reports (Which you have yet to cite a source saying that in fact these are doctored by Russia Today and the Syrian Media, or brought for any evidence of doctored reports by these agencies, thus making you claim unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, in other words it's just your opinion), even with that aside, just this July, the Associated Press reported the Russians were sending a massive Naval fleet to Syria and could deploy counter-terrorism troops, except none of that was true. There was only the routine naval presence. Or how about the reports from 2011 that Gaddafi was employing new African mercenaries in the Civil War, carried by several major news outlets, only to be found false after investigation by various NGOs who were present in Libya, including Amnesty International? Even if these videos exposing CNN didn't exist, there are numerous other examples well documented for many years that show the American media deliberately distorts and lies in coverage of events, and that they get it wrong and on major things, particularly in war and conflict coverage. Or is to point this out, the ramblings or a conspiracy nut? A fringe individual with absolutely no evidence of the American media ever getting wrong? Ask any journalist, there is a slogan they make all journalists learn once they are employed with an outlet (if they didn't get it in journalism school first) "never let the truth get in the way of a good story."
If one were honest, the vague, unreliable biased and farcical coverage is Western News media. 24.238.93.30 (talk) 08:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Adan
[8] Head over to WP:RSN if you want to push this nonsense further. Go waste someone else's time. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Accuracy over sensationalism is never a waste of time. As I am a new-comer, thank you for pointing me in the right direction for who to bring this to the attention of. 24.238.93.30 (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC) Adan

Is the war not centered around Assad?

For the Libyan civil war battle articles, the results are described as either "pro-Gaddafi victory" or "anti-Gaddafi victory". But for the Syrian battles, the results are described as either "FSA victory" or "Syrian Army victory". Why are they not "pro-Assad" or "anti-Assad"? -- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Because it's less biased and more objective. Also the parliamentary opposition that acctualy supports the Syrian Army isn't pro-Assad they are just against the rebels. To make it simple, the Syrian Army fights against, what they see as islamism and foreign agression. --Wüstenfuchs 13:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Thats wrong, the parliamentary opposition are pro-Ba'athists who may believe they are not Ba'athists but are actually Ba'athists... How can you be a communist and still not support a communist government (or even a Marxist government)??? And how can a centrist party espousing more freedom, support a repressive regime... What the parliamentary opposition support is invalid because there is no legal opposition in Syria... In the Libyan Civil War the sides were referred to as pro and anti-Gaddafi because of the political system in Libya; Libya was an autocracy were power was wielded by one-person, that is, power was wielded more-or-less by Gaddafi alone... Secondly, as the conflict evolved, the military was weakened (the reason for this was several purges Gaddafi launched against the miiltary in the 1990s after a failed anti-Gaddafi military coup) to such an extent that the pro-Gaddafi movement had to fight with the help of certain loyalist tribes.. Thirdly, while its correct to say that the al-Assad family have established a monarchist-fascist form of system were the leader is everything; Bashar al-Assad does not rule alone, he rules Syria alongside his family and proteges with help from the Alawi community... --TIAYN (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
"With help from the Alawite community", uh, and help from much of the Sunni, Christian, Druze, and Kurdish communities as well. The question should rather be, how can you be a communist and support a religiously based uprising against a secular, Socialist government? The biggest enemy of leftists are religious fundamentalists, not socialist dictators. Some people did learn from what happened in Iran and Afghanistan in the 1980s, after all, but western leftists are still making the same stupid mistakes. FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, NATO! [9][10] I hope the "rebel" cheerleaders here will realise just what the heck they're doing before it's too late.[11] FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Geo-Political section under Background

I propose the creation of Geo-Political section under Background. It seen that the foreign involviment in Syria Civil War is too big, to be ignored. What do you think? Dafranca (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is too long as it is. I would suggest that if you want to add a geopolitical section to the background, you should find an equal amount of things to remove from the background (since it should be a general overview, and is currently way too specific) as a sort of balancing act. That make sense? I agree to the idea in principle, but we need to start cutting back, rather than adding adding adding. Jeancey (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's focus on slimming the article before expanding it again. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
There was the foreign involvement section, doesn't that suffice? FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_14&oldid=1140148109"