Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Syrian rebels

Heres an article that questions the moral legitimacy of the rebels. Does anybody have ideas as to how to incorporate this into the article? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9321068/Channel-4-journalist-Alex-Thomson-says-Syria-rebels-led-me-into-death-trap.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

We already have Un rights reports that the former assad soldiers are not perfect. This article is not defending anyone's moral legitimacy or not. Sopher99 (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

-There you go again Sopher, "former assad (sic) soldiers." Your writing is intertwined with propaganda that leads me to question your motives in editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The Free Syrian army is mostly made up of former Assad soldiers. Its a fact. Logically, I would expect the former Assad soldiers to have a similar mentality as they did serving under Assad.Sopher99 (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This IP address if you look at the contributions, is an obvious vandal. Could likely be ChronicalUsual. Jacob102699 (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

you should put the Syrian Revolutionary Front's number of fighters : 12,000 fighters view here =======> http://jn1.tv/video/news?media_id=28385 — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinxeAdun (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Title 2

The title has been moved back to "Syrian uprising (2011-present)" by Dpmuk, move discussion was closed as "no consensus". -- Luke (Talk) 02:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
If you want to move it so badly, at least do it properly. There has not been any civil war before it, therefore the year is unnecessary. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Agreed The years are not needed in the title. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC) The German, Italian and some other wikipedias also used the designation of civil war, moreover from 2011! Doncsecztalk 20:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC) I would also like to point out that it hasn't been referred to as THE Syrian Civil War, therefore, civil and war shouldn't be capitalized. Jeancey (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Just to note, there was no civil war prior to this conflict, so the (2011-present) in not needed. -- Luke (Talk) 03:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Right now the title is disputed, if the Civil war title sticks we can fix it then =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Other civil wars was in the beginning uprisings, or wars againts a other state. The prelude of the Syrian Civil War was the Syrian uprising. Otherwise also the German Wikipedia dated 2011 the start of the Civil War (and the prelude is the uprising). Doncsecztalk 06:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC) So, uh, why is the title still like this? FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Stop changing the lede

The article is over 180k characters long, and warrants an extensive lede. Besides the lede has already been discussed and established by concensus 2 months ago.

Further more I see total hypocrisy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Egyptian_revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War_(2011–present)

I7laseral (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Not every article is the same you should know that, I do not see why this article needs info that can easily be placed elsewhere in teh article here, the lead is a short summary not a long intro per WP:LEAD - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

And I don't see why we can sum up a confusing overwhelming amount of information in the lede just like the other articles do. I7laseral (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Right now the lead is at 3 to 4 paragraphs, not everything in the article needs to be in the lead just the highlights of the conflict. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say everything in the article needs to be in the lede. I am just saying the lede in insufficient, at that many articles on wikipedia go to 6 paragraphs in the lede, particularly in war articles, like this one. I7laseral (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said every article is diffrent the ones with 6 paragraphs in the lead go against WP:LEAD, using WP:OTHERSTUFF as an arguement here does not fly by. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The section I removed was about the children and civilian deaths in the lead however the lead already gives an estimate on the total amount of people killed ("According to various sources, including the United Nations, up to 15,200–21,390 people have been killed, of which about half were civilians, but also including 7,000–7,480 armed combatants from both sides and up to 1,400 opposition protesters.") so in a way it is listing the same info twice, I didnt get rid of the info though as it is well referenced so I placed it under the deaths section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the lede, are all the mentions of United Nations, Arab League,European Union, Gulf states, China, Russia, Lebanon, Jordan really that useful for the lede? The both observing missions seem also being from the past.--Maldonado91 (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Turkish F-4 fighter shot down

I've added this recent development to the article. I'm wondering how people think this should be incorporated into the article/infobox if this escalates further or if it should be split. Obviously if NATO got involved completely, we would probably have an article like the one about the international intervention in Libya, but it will probably remain a diplomatic crisis before anything of that scale potentially happens. Hello32020 (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I have place it in the infobox, as a opposition casualtie since the aircraft was flying in syrian airspace, probably gathering intelligence for the opposition, which is harbored and funded partially by Turkey.--Maldonado91 (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably gathering information for opposition? It look like original research. This article is not for spacalation but for facts published in reliable sources.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 13:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This is analyst search http://www.examiner. com/article/turkey-caught-peeking-syria-s-back-yard?cid=rss--Maldonado91 (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't exclude possibility they were trying to provoke the Syrians. EkoGraf (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it was possibly to test the newly russian supplied and trained syrian air defenses. Anyway, Turkey is supporting rebels and I doubt very higly that without this context , this Turkish fighter aircraft whould have been downed. --Maldonado91 (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

This Turkish airplane was shot down above Syrian territorial waters not above surface where pro and contra-Assad forces fight against each other. Second, I can't see how Turkish airplane gather information for Syrian opposition fighters when they don't lead attacking operations, only defensive in some areas. As I read it was not unusual for Turkish aircraft to get in this area but now Syrian AA forces react and shot it down. It is border incident between two countries, not Turkish military operation against Syria.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Wether its territorial waters or above the surface, Syria is Syria. And saying the rebels don't lead attacking operations is simply wrong. Just in the last few days they have started an offensive operation to recapture Baba Amr. EkoGraf (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It was shot 1km off the syrian coast. --Maldonado91 (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

That's Syria hehe. :) EkoGraf (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure that territorial waters are territory of Syria. My point was that it is strange that Turkish airplane above Syrian territorial waters collect information for Syrian rebels. I think that we can threat this event as heavy border incident. Maybe it should be elaborated in specific article?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 17:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Is it Ok to start article Turkish F-4 Phantom shot down incident? I think that there are enough material for specific article and subject is separated enough from mainstream events to put into specific page.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 19:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, does every single incident need an article? FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not if there are enough independent sources?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 20:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

If it results in anything, then yes, but as for now, it's less than a footnote in this conflict. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

this video[1] might show the shootdown, and provide some indication whether turkish or syrian side are right on the location - I don't know if this is a good source Karpaat (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

No consensus????

Is this real? So now an admin can say no consensus by removing each vote he does not like? Has Wikipedia adopted Laurent Gbagbo or Egyptian constitutional court methods? I believe this is a case of admin abuse and that the process should be restarted properly --Maldonado91 (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Review of my closure of Talk:Syrian uprising (2011–present)#Requested move to Syrian Civil War title. Dpmuk (talk) 08:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Move because there is consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Syrian uprising (2011–present) → Syrian Civil War –

The precedent move had a large and vast consensus in favour of a move. But it appear that using some confusion about the organization of the process, an admin blocked the move per WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. So let's rebegin the process without making any mistakes, for clearly showing the wide consensus here on Wikipedia.

I think we need moves to be explained:

Officials sources calling it civil war:

French official calls it civil war. The chief of UN monitors calls it civil war.

Media sources calling it civil war:

http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7kFZ0OZP.BoAtCtXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyY2lvdnUwBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1lTNzBfODQ-/SIG=136etgem9/EXP=1340555481/**http%3a//news.yahoo.com/syria-conflict-now-civil-war-u-n-peacekeeping-165010818.html

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/06/declaring-civil-war-syria-no-longer-overstatement/53497/

The shift in the use of the name has been very heavy.

Here a comparator of searches between "Syria civil war" and "Syria Uprising" http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Syria+Civil+War&word2=Syria+Uprising. The terms Syria civil war is a lot more used over the web.

And finally, the definition:

The conflict is a civil war per Wikipedia definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war

And between all online dictionnaries: 1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.

civil war noun :a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

And what is a war? a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties

There is everything: Officials, common name, proper definition. And there is also consensus. Let making it again so the admin can't ignore it this time. --Maldonado91 (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can see, it's still just called "unrest in Syria" by news sources and such. FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Funded and supported by"

There are some issues there. Why for example is Hezbollah, and not Russia, listed as supporting Syria? Hezbollah is only one of a myriad of Lebanese groups supporting the government (there are Christian and even Sunni groups that support them), why should they be listed over anyone else? And there are now reports that the CIA are helping the FSA in Turkey, so the US is directly involved too. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Russia is not funding, nor supporting Syria. They are not funding Syria, they have a customer relation with this country and do not provide any fund unlike Saudi Arabia, United States and Turkey. Someone removeed the United States mention... --Maldonado91 (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

So if Russia is not supporting Syria, how is Hezbollah, which does even less? And as for the US, it should be added when more reports of CIA involvement comes in. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Like Maldonado said, Russia is not supporting Syria, which they themselves have said, they are in a customer relation. Hezbollah is however providing military support in the form of military advisors and some fighters. Note - Opposition confirmed at least 120 Hezbollah fighters killed in the conflict. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey are providing funding, weapons and housing, which are not of a legal nature, to the opposition, thus they fall into the category funded and supported by. EkoGraf (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol at the "confirmation". A couple of months ago, they claimed the government had used chemical attacks against them, so such accounts are not sufficient. And still, why is the US[2] not in the box? FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

They are not in the box because they still haven't provided any support to the opposition. They are still only assessing wether to provide them with assisstence. That's why the reported CIA teams are in the field at the moment. They are trying to distinguish the radicals from the moderates and the uncoordinated from the coordinated groups. I personally think that unless there is a major policy shift change by Obama the US is gonna stay on the sidelines for the moment, despite what Clinton is saying which anybody can see that she has her own agenda independent of Obama which can be seen in the twos different speaches on the Syria situation. EkoGraf (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

So once they arbitrarily "distinguish between moderates and radicals" (are any armed insurgents "moderate"?), we can expect that they at least divert weapons bought by Gulf states to these fighters, and then they're directly involved, and have to be in the box. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm just replying to your question as it is. Anyway, seems someone found a nice compromise solution. Two categories. Economic and military support and Political support. I think its better now than even before. EkoGraf (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Remark concerning closed discussion Move because there is consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Just to say that the Google 'fight' used is incorrect: the search terms should include double quotes:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22Syria+Civil+War%22&word2=%22Syria+Uprising%22
The winner is now Syria Uprising.

The victory becomes even more conclusive when you do this 'battle' (Syria ——> Syrian):
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22Syrian+Civil+War%22&word2=%22Syrian+Uprising%22

By leaving out the double quotes, one is partially weighting the comparison of terms by whether the word war is more common than uprising, regardless of context. This is not the relevant comparison. Fanzine999 (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Just looked at another 'battle', though: http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22civil+war+in+syria%22&word2=%22uprising+in+syria%22
civil war in Syria wins this one easily. Fanzine999 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If you compare the best two results: http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22civil+war+in+syria%22&word2=%22syrian+uprising%22
Syrian uprising gets 50% more results than civil war in Syria. Fanzine999 (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why two?!

Only ONE F4-Phantom is missing, not two. Please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.111.116 (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It does not say 2 F4 Phantoms shot down and missing, it says 2 F4 Phantom pilots shot down and missing. Read carefully please before asking for and edit. EkoGraf (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Protection

Full protect 3 days, move protected 2 days, to let things iron out, due to multiple requests. Please use this time to discuss, find consensus, move forward. Any admin is free to modify this protection in any way without permission. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a civil war now

It's a civil war now and it is called "civil war" by more and more media and politicians. So let's move the article to "Syrian civil war"! -Metron (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

more and more media such as? I7laseral (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, it's a civil war if enough websites say it is? This is absurd. Yes, there is unrest, but the oposition controls no territory and the government is in no apparent danger of ceasing to function any time soon. Call it a civil war if you must, but so far it's been an extremely one-sided civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.11.154.97 (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The FSA does have territory, the Idlib province, the Deir Ezzor province, Daraa, the northern half of Homs, Talsibeh and Rastan. The Somalian government is in no danger of ceasing to function any time soon. Still a Somali civil war. I7laseral (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I said "control." While the FSA operates in those areas, they control no provinces or districts. Your comparison to Somalia is a poor one. The Somali government only very barely functions and provides only minimal and inconsistent services to its population. The Syrian government functions largely as usual and continues to provide normal, day to day services (such as sanitation, trash removal, fire, and police services) to the vast majority of its population. 134.11.154.97 (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sanitation and fire are not taken care of by the Syrian government except in Central Damascus and Central Aleppo, Latakia and Tartous. Police and the army are one entity now. Syria had the lowest Human development index of all arab nations except for Yemen before the uprising even began. The Somali government in Somaliland and Central Mogadashu functions perfectly fine. I7 has a point though, a civil war could be like the one in Algeria, 1992-2002, Shri lanka 1976-2009, , none of which the ruling governments were in jeopardy. Keep in mind civil wars last an average of 5 or 6 years. It took 3 years for Somalians to oust Siand Barre, 3 years for Liberians to Oust Charles Taylor, and 9 years for Ugandans to oust Idid Amin. Sopher99 (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh 7,00 pus dead, its not a civil war, just a misunderstanding. I doubt the government controls all the country or the rebels control none. The reports are patchy and unreliable. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

no,the FSA controls alot of territory along the turkish and lebonanese borders,and the proof is that they can't even free the kidnapped lebonanese — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.200.186 (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

UN Officials are now calling it a civil war http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/06/12/annan-says-syria-conflict-is-now-civil-war/. Does it count now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.14.28 (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The Syrian regime is now calling it a "state of war" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18598533 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.254.239 (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Page is not neutral, any mention of uprising as US-instigated color revolution is immediately deleted.

It is not permitted to post any points of view that the uprising is not spontaneous but is the result of long and careful preparation by the US / NATO / CIA. Like in other color revolutions, The opposition consists of US sponsored NGO's like NED, National Endowment for Democracy. The fighters are mercenaries, CIA foreign legion, who infiltrate into Syria over the Turkish border - the Free Syrian Army is not from Syria. Websites like globalresearch.ca, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29234 http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/ http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com.au/ http://www.voltairenet.org/NATO-preparing-vast-disinformation or http://tarpley.net/2012/06/12/russia-reportedly-preparing-divisions-for-deployment-to-syria/ are replete with details on this alternative explanation of events, but it is taboo, censored and banned from mention on Wikipedia. Therefore this page should be marked NEUTRALITY DISPUTED. JPLeonard (talk) 06:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

All those sources are conspiracy websites. We have already determined ages ago in the talk that the CIA/foreign mercenaries/alqaeda on drugs theories are fringe. We have tens of thousands of sources confirming the opposite, that there are no cia mercenaries or foreign conspiracies. End of story. I7laseral (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that you didn't provide any references with your addition, and besides being conspiracy, they have already been discussed and mark unreliable by the Reliable Sources Notice Board. Jeancey (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

CIA doesn't have to be present in the country for the US to influence things. We've had US funded propaganda channels for some time, and that's just one thing we know for fact. As for the uprising itself, everyone knew an Islamist uprising was going to happen again since the early 80s. It was just a question of when. That's why the government hasn't fallen, they've had plenty of time to prepare. And please, don't bring up token-minorities in the opposition. This uprising being peacful and democratic is "fringe". FunkMonk (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No because we have had a ton of RS confirming the peaceful nature that lasted until January (and which stills go on to this day, just accompanied by FSA insurgency). Islamists did not start apearing until last summer - because they realized the opportunity presented. The vast majority is not islamist. All journalists not accompanied by government minders confirm that. I7laseral (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The opposition knows that any sectarian or Islamist statements will make western support for them less likely. In spite of this, plenty of such is slipping out. And yes, there were armed activists early last year, unlike say, in Egypt, Tunisia and Bahrain. The opposition took up arms in Syria when less had been kiled than in Egypt at the time. FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Tunisia major protests won in a period of 10 days. Egypt 18. Bahrain protesters were initially by the Saudi army after 6 or 7 days. It has been over 450 days in Syria since March 15th. Syria has a genocidal army, like Gaddaffi's (and like Egypt and Bahrain's too, except both countries succumb to international pressure very easily compared to the others). Syria has 1/4 Egypts population, and in Syria people were being systematically killed, rather than random security forces gunfire. There are hardly as much sectarian statements as there are in Egypt, Bahrain, and even current Libya. I7laseral (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"Systematically killed" is POV. The armies in Tunisia and Egypt weren't attacked, yet they still shot protesters, Egypt shot more within the first month than were killed in Syria the first month, only after the opposition took up arms did the body count rise dramatically. Of course the clashes weren't sectarian in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, since they're overwhelmingly Sunni. That didn't keep Christian Egyptians from being attacked by Salafists though. If the Shia of Bahrain took up arms as the Sunnis in Syria do, they'll be "massacred" too, no doubt about it. And the West wouldn't do a damn thing. Libya was more of a tribe-thing, though secularism versus Islamism also played a role. Secular Liberals in all countries were just the spice that ignited the unrest, they've had zero influence since, unlike what Western media tries to portray. FunkMonk (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again, I had already stated that the Egyptian and Bahraini army is genocidal but its leadership succumbs to international pressure. I have also stated that Syria has a population 1/4 the size of Egypt. 800 protesters killed in Egypt is proportionally equivalent to 200 in Syria. You should also understand that only 50,000 protesters were active in the first month of the Syrian conflict, compared to millions of Egyptians. Thats 500 protesters killed out of 50,000 initially protesting in Syria, compared to 850 out of 10,000,000 protesting in Egypt. If there had been ten million protesters in Syria, 100,000 would have died. Get it? Furthermore I was referring to the civilian rebels repression of the black populace in Libya (which makes up about 25% of the population) entire towns were evicted by rebels on the premise that they were mercenary/gaddafi sympathizers. I7laseral (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Their leaderships do not succumb to squat. They're not fighting armed uprisings like Syria is, so of course there are less dead. But let's say the Shias of Bahrain or the Salafists of Egypt took up arms... The governments would annihilate them, but the West would applaud it. FunkMonk (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Once gain, Syria was not in the armed uprising stage in March 2011. Their leadership do succumb, why else would Mubarak resign. Bahrain is a tiny island and if west loses support for Bahrain you might as well call Bahrain part of Iran (not that the civil disobedience campaign and protests in Bahrain have anything to do with iran. Also Salifists are a minority. Free Syrian Army and Syrian Liberation Army (civilians who take up arms) are the vast majority of fighters. I7laseral (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem to "know" a lot of details which has eluded the rest of world. Good for you. And lol at Bahrain becoming "part of Iran". That's rich, for someone denouncing every claim against the Syrian opposition as a conspiracy theory. FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, Bedouins in Suez and Sinai attacked Egyptian police and government buildings with RPG's and engaged them in gunbattles. The uprising in Syria did not start in the capital but rather in the small town of Daraa, sparked by a local incident, similar to Sidi Bouzid in Tunisia. In Tunisia and Egypt, the armies refused to engage protesters, and forced the presidents to resign. What we see in Syria is the army refusing to abandon the president due to sectarian and clan ties. The Egyptian tanks were deployed to restore order; they did not engage in warfare. The Syrian tanks were deployed in late April, around the same time Al Jazeera reported armed opposition in the form of local gun owners to have commenced. However, the tanks became actively involved in conflict, as did the regular army. The Egyptian Army was just smarter than the Syrian Army and survived by changing face. There were no RPG's fired against the Syrian police like in Egypt (although to be sure there were riots and torches). Bear in mind that it took a month for Syrians to take up arms, as opposed to less than a week for Egyptian Bedouins. The Egyptian Army refused to enforce the sins of the Egyptian police; that just didn't hold in Syria. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet again, Egypt killed more protesters in a month than Syria did in five. And again, let the Bahrainis or Egyptias arm themselves, and we'll see how the West will ignore their annihilation. FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I cannot adequately express my opposition to allowing article content to be disputed on the basis of bizarre conspiracy theories in words, so I will settle for saying that I pity you for wasting your time in this way and I implore you to study this article: Occam's Razor. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, look. Unless we add unreliable sources (3 conspiracy websites and 2 blogs) article is clealy not neutral. Is this a joke? EllsworthSK (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

who has the upper hand in the conflict

alot of news reports confirm that the free syrian army is gaining the upper hand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.200.186 (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

alot of independent reports confirmed that the free syrian army control 60% of syria mostly rural areas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that is not believable, because 40% of Syria is desert, and the government pretty much controls that. Second, they probably do control maybe 40-50% of populated ares. Number 3 is, we can't confirm this in the first place if we don't have sources. Please show sources. Also, you can sign your name with four tildes. Jacob102699 (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

They're killing more soldiers than ever, but the Syrian military maintains overwhelming force and remains unabashed when it comes to deploying it. I'm not getting excited yet. Fanzine999 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

but reports confirm that the free syrian army control vast areas and they have the upper hand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 04:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Understanding why my contrib was removed

Last March, under the heading "Support for the Opposition" I wrote:

"On March 5, U.S. Senator and former Republican Presidential candidate John McCain said that America should bomb the Assad regime, support the Syrian opposition, and defend civilians from government attacks."

I cited an article from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/middleeast/syria-permits-united-nations-visit-but-escalates-effort-to-crush-opposition.html)

McCain also said in another speech “At the request of the Syrian National Council, the Free Syrian Army, and Local Coordinating Committees inside the country, the United States should lead an international effort to protect key population centers in Syria, especially in the north, through airstrikes on Assad’s forces. To be clear: This will require the United States to suppress enemy air defenses in at least part of the country."

McCain is a major politician in the U.S. and the U.S. is a major power, so why was his vocal support for intervention on behalf of the opposition deleted from the "Support for the Opposition" section? If there is a good reason, someone plz explain. FrogTrain (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)FrogTrain

The logic for including McCain's pronouncements, then as now, is that he is a major politician of a major power. Such logic then permits inclusion in this article of the opinions of every major politician of every major power, meaning the article would quickly become buried under such statements, for there are many such politicians. (It might be added that such logic permits McCain's thoughts on every single topic he's ever spoken on to be included on the relevant Wikipedia articles—along with those of every major politician of every major power). Inclusion of simple statements of opinion by individuals in no position to affect anything is not appropriate, and the article is long enough as it is.

The relevant material will consist only of the actual policies being implemented by actors in a position to have an effect on the course of the crisis—be that the Obama Administration, the Russian government, the Chinese government, the Gulf states, neighbouring countries, the Syrian government, other Syrian groups, the UN, human rights organisations, and so on (already quite a list, without mentioning opinions of people in no position to affect anything)—the effects of those policies on the crisis, and the opinions and stories of the most important people: those on the receiving end of said policies (and who are themselves powerful actors), namely the Syrian people. I therefore believe McCain's thoughts on Syria would better placed on his Wikipedia article. Fanzine999 (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Syrian jet

Request the following be added to the end of the section titled "Renewed fighting", concerning developments of the downing of a Turkish jet by Syria:

Turkish Prime Minister [[Recep Tayyip Erdogan]] vowed retaliation, saying "The rules of engagement of the Turkish Armed Forces have changed," and that "Turkey will support Syrian people in every way until they get rid of the bloody dictator and his gang." <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2164903/Turkey-brands-Syria-clear-threat-vows-retaliate-downed-fighter-jet.html |work=Daily Mail |title=Turkey brands Syria a 'clear threat' and vows to retaliate over downed fighter jet as Nato rejects military intervention |author=Staff writer |date=26 June 2012 |accessdate=June 26, 2012}}</ref>

Thanks. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 14:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we have a different source, though? ;D

Turkish Prime Minister [[Recep Tayyip Erdogan]] vowed retaliation, saying: "The rules of engagement of the Turkish Armed Forces have changed . . . Turkey will support Syrian people in every way until they get rid of the bloody dictator and his gang."<ref name = "nation bloody">{{cite web |url=http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/international/26-Jun-2012/turkey-dubs-syria-a-clear-threat-vows-to-retaliate |title=Turkey dubs Syria 'a clear threat', vows to retaliate |work=[[The Nation (Pakistani newspaper)|The Nation]] |agency=[[Agence France-Presse|AFP]] |date=26 June 2012 |accessdate=26 June 2012}}</ref> Ankara acknowledged that the jet had flown over Syria for a short time, but said such temporary overflights were common, had not led to an attack before, and alleged that Syrian helicopters had violated Turkish airspace five times without being attacked and fired at a second, search-and-rescue jet.<ref name = "nation bloody"/><ref>{{cite web |last1= Borger |first1= Julian |last2= Chulov |first2= Martin |last3= Elder |first3= Miriam |date= 26 June 2012 |title= Syria shot at second Turkish jet, Ankara claims |url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/25/syria-shooting-second-turkish-plane-claim |publisher= guardian.co.uk |accessdate= 26 June 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1= Fielding-Smith |first1= Abigail |last2= Dombey |first2= Daniel |last3= Khalaf |first3= Roula |date= 25 June 2012 |title= Turkey says Syria fired at second jet |url= http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a60fa15c-bebe-11e1-b24b-00144feabdc0.html |publisher= FT.com |accessdate= 27 June 2012 }}</ref> The White House said the shooting down of the jet furnished further evidence that the Assad regime was "losing its grip" on the country.<ref>|title= Signs growing that Assad losing control of Syria: US |url= http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1210093/1/.html |publisher= channelnewsasia.com |agency= AFP |date= 26 June 2012 |accessdate 26 June 2012 }}</ref>

Hate the Mail!! Fanzine999 (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Lol, what did Erdogan do in retaliation for the Gaza Flotilla massacre again? FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

About the Zero hour plan

the Free Syrian Army has planned a plan called the zero hour plan,this plan is like the Libyan rebels plan when they got out of the western mountains to the capital Tripoli,in this plan they will called all people to uprising and burn all government post (including airports) of the Syrian regime's as the Egyptians did in the beginning of their revolution and all people will uprise in the same time so that the army can't afford to send the military because they can never send the military to all cities and towns and villages in Syria,and that all force still in the Syrian army sympathies with the revolution will join the opposition and it like going to be like like what the Libyan protesters did in Benghazi when they took control of all government posts in the city,and all forces of the opposition will then go to liberate Damascus beginning with an uprising in the capital then all forces from the areas around Damascus will attack from all four direction,my question could this plan work out and what is the possibility for the success of the plan ,I appreciated anyone commenting (Alhanuty (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC))

While your enthusiasm about the subject is good, the talkpage is a not a place to discuss the subject - rather it is a place to discuss edits about the article of the subject. Please don't create new section discussing the syrian conflict on talk page, as I believe it goes against the guideline, for the reason I just stated. But Yes, I believe the zero hour could be effective, granted that enough FSA and rebel members know when the zero hour would take place. I7laseral (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Has Wikipedia turned into a conscpiracionist blog? The last few talk sections on this page are very poor.--Maldonado91 (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

perhaps if you were to read my response to Alhanuty you would see why. I7laseral (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

• Lawl. The insurgents in Libya were only able to do this because NATO did all the work for them. Not so in Syria, yet. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

they did it in Libya because the Libyan arny was collapsing and after the tactic change the rebels did in their strategy, they where able to break out and enter the capital ,the NATO airstrike could be considered a secondary reason for the rebels victory,but NATO really wasn't the reason for the rebel breakout ,it was the rebel tactic change by by attacking from behind Qaddafi's army lines (ie.attacking from two sides the rebels inside the Qaddafi's territory and the rebel's from rebel's territory) and the prove is even when the nato bombardment was strong, Qaddafi's forces didn't crumble under the airstrike's pressure ,they collapsed when rebels attacked from inside and outside. (Alhanuty (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC))

Russia

Can we agree finally that Russia is not supporting Syria? They are selling weapons, not providing funds and weapons like Saudi Arabia, United States and Turkey are doing. Russia says that they are politically neutral, that they are willing to talk to both parts, that both are equally to blame. They reject any foreign intervention because they defend the principle of state sovereignity. They are not like Iran supporting Syria. It is the same for China --Maldonado91 (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

What Russia is doing is something that they have been doing for decades and is within a legal framework, simple customer-supplier service, independent of support or not. They are fullfilling their contracts that were set years before the conflict. While Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are funding and arming the opposition in an illegal framework. And also, Russia itself has said they do not support Syria, but they do support a bilateraly, not unilateraly, agreed end to the fighting. Which is common sense. EkoGraf (talk) 19:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

And USA and EU is since when even selling weapons to rebels? If we do not consider supplement of fighter jets, helicopters (and yes, I know that they were being repaired but still were supplied), anti-ship missiles, AA systems, small arms and ammunition than how come we do not take the same merit for comm devices? Or will we pretend that Russia and China is not politically protecting their ally in Damascus? Why not simply remove that whole section, it will only spark flamewar. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Those helicopters were and are Syrian military property, they are only being returned back. EkoGraf (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I must agree with EllsworthSK: the Russians are supporting Assad by providing diplomatic cover and by its refurbishment of weapons that will be used against civilians (helicopters and tanks have already been used against Syria's population). The Russians are not neutral, and have interests of their own involved (most notably their presence in Tartus). The US and Gulf states, in particular, are far from neutral, but to claim total Russian neutrality clearly goes against the facts Fanzine999 (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

With regard to the fulfilment of Russia's weapons contracts, I was thinking of adding this recent statement from Amnesty International:

Amnesty International, speaking of the Syrian government's headlong deployment of military helicopters, criticised Russia: "Anyone supplying attack helicopters—or maintaining, repairing or upgrading them—for the Syrian government displays a wanton disregard for humanity."

Given the length of the article, the above can probably be reduced to
Amnesty International criticised Russia's transfer of the refurbished heclicopters.<ref>{{cite web |title= Syria: Reports of helicopter shipments underscore need for arms embargo |url= http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/syria-reports-helicopter-shipments-underscore-need-arms-embargo-2012-06-19 |date= 19 June 2012 |publisher= Amnesty International |accessdate= 25 June 2012 }}</ref>
Fanzine999 (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Refurbishing attack helicopters = military support. Not refurbishing attack helicopters = no military support. Talk all you want to hide the equation, but the equation remains. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

there should be a map showing areas under the control of the free syrian army and the syrian army

i suggest that there should be a map showing the areas under the control of the free syrian army and the syrian army,as in libya,because there is reports of that the free syrian army controls alot of areas in syrian ,so i suggest that somrone should make a map showing it,i welcome anyone who makes the map or comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 04:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

That is impossible at the moment. Because in Libya we had solid frontlines. In Syria the front is fluid and nobody knows which are is under whose control. You got scattered villages and small towns in Idlib reportedly under rebel control, but the military surrounds them, or viceversa where the military controls the large cities but the rebels are on the outskirts. Not possible at the moment. Maybe in a few months when the situation becomes more clear. EkoGraf (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

then why there is a map for the fighting in homs (Alhanuty (talk) 03:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)).

Assad formally declares Syria to be in a state of war

Now, im not advocating changing the title to civil war, as efforts at that keep getting shot down. But now that even Assad seems to realise his country is in a civil war is there more likely to be a consensus reached on name change? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/26/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE85D0IS20120626 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kspence92 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If FunkMonk, Tradedia, Jeancey, Tal Verberetaraar, Guest2324 and Supreme Deliciousness all believe that Assad's recognition of civil war in Syria qualifies the article to be changed, we would have consensus. Sopher99 (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yet I don't see the term "civil war" used anywhere in that article, not even in the biased editorialisation. And that's the thing, most sources simply don't call it a civil war, whether pro or anti Syrian. Common name is what this is about. FunkMonk (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on already FunkMonk, he says they are at war. And the common name is not Syrian uprising anymore so the current title for the article is incorrect. In my oppinion probably 45 percent are calling it an uprising, 45 percent a civil war and 10 percent a revolution. I think we should pick the most realistic one and note in the first sentence of the article that the conflict is also known by the other two terms. EkoGraf (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"Come on" what? This is Wikipedia, no original research or interpretation of the sources are allowed. Your estimation is quite irreletant, look at the news sources, none actually refer to the conflict as a civil war, they only report that "some guy said it was a civil war", that Syria is "on the verge of civil war" and "some say it is like a civil war". FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not just some guy. It's the head of the UN observer mission who is a veteran soldier and the French foreign minister who speaks for France. And not to mention that the president of Syria himself is now calling it a war. You can't just dismiss all three of them like that, that's simply not a neutral POV. EkoGraf (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Support: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/26/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t1. - "We are in a state of real war, in every aspect of the words, and when we're in a state of war, all of our politics has to be concentrated on winning this war," President Bashar al-Assad told his cabinet during a speech about the economy and domestic issues in which he called for unity to make the country strong. This was the front page article on CNN international edition (and concurrent with front page coverage in BBC news). With all due respect, most global news organizations are characterizing Syria as being in a state of war right now. This has happened only in the last 24 hours, which is why before I would not have characterized such conflict as a "civil war", in agreement with FunkMonk. Shall we do a new vote regarding consensus to move? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.158.217 (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

If the President is calling it a war, then it probably is a war. --Joshua Issac (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk of war is not the same thing as a civil war. Was the so-called War on Terror a civil war? Given how Assad likes to spin the situation as him against a bunch of terrorists, isn't a "war on terrorists" the more reasonable interpretation of his comments? I'll now reintroduce my is it?/isn't it? article from one of FP's blogs: "Herve Ladsous, the U.N.'s peacekeeping chief, acknowledged on Tuesday that Syria was now effectively in a state of civil war. . . . 'Talk of civil war in Syria is not consistent with reality,' the Syrian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. 'What is happening in Syria is a war against terrorist groups plotting against the future of the Syrian people.'" According to Amnesty after its recent visit to the country, levels of violence in Idlib and Aleppo during the first half of 2012 "reached the level and intensity of a non-international armed conflict. . . . The fighting appears to have reached the minimum level of intensity and the parties to have the minimum level of organization required for the existence of an armed conflict of a non-international character." Not having it characterised as civil war is to take the Assad line, who has vested interests in keeping that characterisation away (one good one being the legal framework changes—from that Amnesty report: if you have "a non-international armed conflict" then "international humanitarian law (the laws of war) applies alongside international human rights law"). Fanzine999 (talk) 03:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Its not war but foreplay. No point debating a non starter Enlil Ninlil (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Foreplay? Tell that to the ones lying in those mass graves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Assad didn't say his country is in a state of civil war. He said it's in a real state of war from all angles, a reference to Western help for the rebels and the Syrian airspace incursion by a Turkish fighter jet. Civil war is neither what he said, nor what he meant. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Could really Al Jazeera be considered as a neutral source of information on this subject?

This page reference the state of Qatar as "Economic and military support" of one of the belligerent. Therefore, as Al Jazeera is a Qatari state-owned broadcaster, its neutrality can be debated. Therefore, to make sure this article present a neutral point of view, I suggest the removal of all references to Al Jazeera publications and suppression of all text part referenced by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.134.82 (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come on... has Al-Jazeera ever lied to you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is not state controlled, the broadcasting company's shares are simply initiated by the government. It is not state tv like Russia today, Press TV, or Voice of America. Especially Al jazeera English is independent. Sopher99 (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference between an independent broadcaster financed by a state owned broadcasting company and a state controlled television. Sopher99 (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Both Russia Today and al-Jazeera are fully state-owned through a government-owned media corporation. In Russia Today's case, that corporation is RIA Novosti (100% Russian government ownership), in al-Jazeera's case it's Qatar Media Corporation (100% Qatari government ownership). Yet you describe the former as 'independent' and the latter as 'state controlled'. Objectively, that difference is fictional. They're either both propaganda channels or they're both independent media. You cannot have it both ways. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Al jazeera is state owned but not state controlled. (ie there is no government regulation on the what is being said or not being said in Al jazeera). Russia Today however there is government regulation on what is being said and not (ie state controlled). Al jazeera's broadcasting company is state owned, but Al ajzeera is not state tv. Al ajzeera is an independent channel. Sopher99 (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you please provide a source on your claim that "there is government regulation on what is being said and not" regarding Russia Today? - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

RT is not gov't regulated, this is illegal under the Russian constitution. Please provide a source for your claims here, because frankly they are not believable.96.238.211.182 (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

IMO government ownership is not decisive factor. BBC is also owned by British government, yet it is reliable. It is more question for WP:RSN but RT is at least very controversial given their hosts, which many times include prominent conspiratists. Press TV is not viewed as reliable majority because of their holocaust denial reports, not state ownership. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahhhh, the old 'you disagree with the Jewish line and everything you say becomes invalid' argument, I think Socrates was the one who first established this as one of the core tenets of rational discourse.96.238.211.182 (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Socrates talked about Jews? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the Juice overlords. Are you not afraid of Mossad killing you for edits like this? Quick - get your tin foil hat and do not let reptilians take you alive. Or just bugger off. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:RSN It was discussed there, together with al Arabiya. It is reliable source. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Russia Today is definitely government controlled. That's a big part of Putin's so called "dictatorship" by this CNN blog by Fareed Zakaria [3]. Al Jazeera though, is not controlled by Qatar, and I have seen nowhere that Qatar is called tolitarian or statist like Putin. AJE is even more so reliable because it is based in the U.K. and the U.S. which don't control it as it is an independent media. AJA barely controls AJE. Only that AJE just is a western media that heavily focuses on Middle East. You can say AJE is biased towards the FSA, but that's not completely true. They're not biased towards anybody, except being biased against the government. The only news agencies you would find that are biased for Assad are SANA, VOA, Peyvand, Tehran Times, Iran Daily, FarsiNews, and whatever other Iranian news there is. So, Syria news, Iranian News, and Russian news are the only biased for Syria. All of Western Media is not. So in conclusion, I'm saying we have no neutral sources except maybe, strong emphasis on maybe, the U.N. We're going to have to balance the sources the best we can of the 90% Western or Arabian Anti-Assad news, and the Syrian, Russian, and Iranian Pro-Assad news. Thanks, Jacob102699 (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Jazeera never criticises the Qatari government, what does that mean? FunkMonk (talk) 00:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

OOOOOH REEEAAALLLLY?, then I suppose you missed last week's headlines http://www.aljazeera.com/video/middleeast/2012/06/201261264715371679.html and http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2012/06/201261472812737158.html Sopher99 (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Qatar is a country of 1.8 million people with one of the top five highest gdp per capita (living standard) countries in the world. Qatar does not have any internal conflicts or histories of massacres or ethnic divions. So what is there to cover in Qatar. Not much really. Boring place. It's like criticizing the Delaware newspaper for hardly writing any news about delaware. Sopher99 (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

In an amazing coincidence, Qatar is Arabic for "Delaware". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Any sources?

In the infobox, it says Iran and Hezbollah are providing economic and military support for the Syrian Armed Forces. Do we have any solid reliable sources to back that statement up? That goes for Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar as well for the Syrian opposition. -- Luke (Talk) 02:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, i think there is some misleading or unconfirmed info regarding such things, although the opposition really got outsiders, Assad has added that they are fighting foreign mercenaries[4] . Clarificationgiven (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Google is your friend. You will have millions of answer if you search about Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. You really should have done a quick search before posting this.--Maldonado91 (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Why is the infobox title changed?

Somebody changed the title of the infobox to "Syrian Civil War", while the title of the article is still "Syrian uprising (2011–present)". This needs to be changed back. Also someone added Russia under "Economic and military support" for the Syrian regime. I don't recall a consensus for that either. -- Futuretrillionaire 01:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futuretrillionaire (talk • contribs)

Sometimes this is done by IPs if you see something like this you should revert it and explain that no consensus was reached on the talk page as no new official move chat has opened since then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

why there is alot of reference errors

why there is alot of reference errors

there alot of information erased from the article can some one fix it .(Alhanuty (talk) 20:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC))

Maybe because they are no more relevant or available. Clarificationgiven (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Fanzinette vandalizing the page

This editor has made 60 contributions in less than 9 hours , completely changing and rampaging the page as he wanted. He deleted whole parts ot the page and expanded other without any balance. The unreal number of his contrbitutions and their size make it nearly impossible to understand that as a whole and to check it individually. But he does not seem a very balanced editor and other should review very carefully all of his deletions and additions. It will not be easy seeing he has nothing else to do apparently.--Maldonado91 (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hard for me to pin down the ideology of an editor who both chops out huge chunks of the article that contain information presenting the Syrian regime in a rather negative light (human rights violations, arrests, etc.) but also adds in a lot of information about how Russia is plying the regime with weapons and whatnot. Regardless of ideology, the editor clearly needs to discuss the changes on Talk and stop willfully removing massive pieces of the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. My point of view is this: I utterly despise Assad, and I take a dim view of people who support him, whether that's Russia, China or whoever. The human rights section I have done is a reflection of my negative view of Assad, as are the additions about Russia. The bits I am deleting are an attempt to remove excess detail and to reduce the number of specific incidents. There are terrible things happening to so many people, it just isn't possible to list so many of them in my view. That's what I was trying to achieve with my deletions. Fanzine999 (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I would very much like to reduce the size of the detentions section and expand on the treatment of journalists. It is a very bitty section as it stands. Fanzine999 (talk) 09:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I would caution you against editing from the perspective of trying to impose a certain POV. I think it's a noble aim to shrink this bloated page down to a more appropriate size, but POV editing is really frowned upon at Wikipedia and a consistent pattern of editing in that way is going to earn you more scrutiny and less respect than you probably want. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see. I have tried to keep my language neutral and write it like a report, even though I do not like Assad or Putin. Please do make adjustments to what I have written if you think it needs it. Fanzine999 (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

CNN

CNN, a major RS, is now calling it a civil war.[5]. Jacob102699 (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

CNN has been calling this a civil war for some time now, we should still wait a bit more before opening up another discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this is the first time I have heared them call it a civil war. EkoGraf (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried clicking the link Jacob provided, but the video didn't play, saying that "There was a problem playing this video". Anyways, here is the official CNN topic page for Syria [6]. It contains all recent articles on Syria, and I can't find "civil war" anywhere here. -- Futuretrillionaire 16:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futuretrillionaire (talk • contribs)

It'son left sidebar of this page, [7], and is titled there, Syrian opposition armed and organized. Jacob102699 (talk) 21:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Map and chart in "Arab spring" Wikipedia page is calling the Syrian uprising a civil war. This needs to be changed.

In the "Arab Spring" Wikipedia page, some one changed the map and chart in the "overview" section, calling Syrian crisis a civil war. However, in the "Syrian uprising (2011-present)" talk page, there has been no consensus on changing the name of the conflict to Syrian civil war. The map and chart needs to be changed back. I've added this notice to the "Arab spring" talk page as well. --Futuretrillionaire 17:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Move review and/or AN/I discussion

As alternatives to restarting requested-move discussions or reverting page moves:

1. There is a WP:MRV (move review) process, which is however relatively new and untried.
2. There is a discussion at WP:AN/I

— P.T. Aufrette (talk) 17:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• • If you want a move reviewed, then WP:MRV is an excellent choice. It might be new, but the processes are based on other reviews, so I would expect it to be fair. I think the point Bwilkins is making is that you should wait a month before starting a new discussion, and it should be started in a less controversial way, not passing judgement on the last discussion and when it comes up again, taking a neutral stance and just focusing on the content. I tend to believe that in the end, the name will get changed, but without being overly bureaucratic, we still need to respect the processes for making changes. We don't need our own civil war here, and I'm sure you don't want that either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

IT'S OFFICIAL!: Syria is now in a Civil War!

I have now changed my mind. I just read that Bashar al-Assad has, just now, stated that Syria is, indeed, in a civil war. Therefore, I now completely support moving this article, as soon as possible. SuperHero2111 (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You misread. Assad did *not* say Syria is in a state of civil war. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

We just had a huge discussion about this closed 4 days ago and now you want to change the title? Based on consensus we shouldnt go on words alone but what the sources say and what the yare calling it for POV sake. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion was closed as "No Consensus". Much different than saying "Based on Consensus". Very prudent to reopen a move discussion if no-consensus was reached, if new information comes to light.--JOJ ^Hutton 13:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, here is the link: [8] And, also, I am sorry for that initial post. I had no idea that there was already a discussion, about this. Sorry! SuperHero2111 (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Look at the section above, and in general, just read what has already been written before adding new, redundant sections. He did not mention civil war, but war. FunkMonk (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The key question would be, "Who is he at war with?" Is it just the insurgency? Or is it also Turkey and NATO and some others? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It's more and more and more ridiculous! Some People just don't want to call it a civil war: Facts seemingly don't matter. (134.2.64.111 (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC))

Some people just don't want to interpret the sources, since it's not allowed on Wikipedia. If he says "war", we cannot cite it as "civil war". FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

If other countries are getting involved (and are they, or not?) then it's more than just a civil war. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no sources that suggest more countries are involved except perhaps in an arms supplying capacity. Assads war definition is clearly aimed at the armed groups he is fighting in his own country. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Assad only says they're at war (like it wasn't obvious already), and continues to refer to the rebels as "terrorists" who don't represent the people. Yeh, that's propaganda. However, since the big honcho says it's war, then maybe the article should be called "Syrian war" rather than "Syrian uprising"? Actually, "war" is probably more neutral anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Syrian Conflict(2011 - present) would be more suitable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.246.128.126 (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not. We have it as uprising and we are keeping it that way until consensus on civil war. Yemeni uprising Bahraini uprising Libyan uprising Syrian uprising. I7laseral (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You talk as if you own the article. Which you don't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Good try Superhero, but no use talking to dead ducks. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Remember, until there are sufficient reliable sources calling this conflict a civil war, the title must remain as it is. Futuretrillionaire 02:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futuretrillionaire (talk • contribs)

I'm saving my vote until it comes up for decision whether to merge the article with World War 3. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 10:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, in my opinion, if this isn't a civil war, then, the Libyan uprising isn't a war, either. SuperHero2111 (talk) 04:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Syrian government's carbombing

Syrian government orchestrates car bombing to kill about 80 in anti-assad funeral in Zamalka. Sana of course does not report it. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/06/more-than-70-killed-by-car-bombing-at-funeral-in-syrian-town.html Still have doubts that the Syrian government can't be the orient of these "bombings" they happen to experience when monitors are around? Sopher99 (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Anti government claim actually, and about 85 to be exact, there should be a probe into this issue, we can't directly blame on government, as we have seen before that such claims were proved to be lie. Clarificationgiven (talk) 10:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

My intention of establishing a new talk here was actually to promote putting the incident into a paragraph on the main page somewhere along the timeline or so. Feels kind of awkward saying it so I added personal commentary instead (a distinction I should note from personal reasoning - I was not attempting to coerce any edits with that view) Sopher99 (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Put your presentation here then, and just got to read that now CNN reported "14000+ killed in Syrian uprising; more than half in last 4 months", Might be a point regarding this whole scene. Clarificationgiven (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like we should renew the voting process

With a slew of RS that we use commonly in this article, now calling it a civil war, we should reinstate a vote. How about this time a simple Support/Oppose vote (yes or nov vote). No lengthy explanation or comments. Just whether you agree that because a dozen of the top 20 English RS now call it a civil war, the article should be changed too. (not to mention the French foreign ministry, the UN Human rights spokesmen, the UN piece keeping chief, and arguably assad himself). Sopher99 (talk) 10:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. EkoGraf (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Your call for a simple yes/no vote contravenes Wikipedia policy (WP:NOTAVOTE). Therefore, I oppose the proposal. Furthermore, the last discussion on this subject was closed on 23 June, which is only a week ago. I don't think it would be very productive to call a new discussion so soon. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose per TaalVerbeteraar while I feel that the title should be "Civil war" we should wait at least a few more days, also yes wikipedia is no ta vote its through consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

More Casualities

No damages regarding armored tanks/vehicles, MiGs(if any), Cannons, etc have been listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarificationgiven (talk • contribs) 09:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Because there are no sources. EkoGraf (talk) 13:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

There should be some research, page looks really good when we will have such information. Clarificationgiven (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Military infobox and civil infobox

I have created a military infobox to go with the rename. For the moment, I Have kept the civil box right under the new box. Should the civil box be removed completely or kept at this place?--Maldonado91 (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the civil box should be removed. This has evolved into an armed conflict with only a few civilian aspects left. EkoGraf (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I Agree with EkoGraf because the opposition's fighters are mostly composed of civilians and 85,000 Army Defectors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinxeAdun (talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Syrian map of the Arab spring Should be changed into red and must have an ongoing civil war legend — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinxeAdun (talk • contribs) 12:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that there should be only one info box without speculation about alliances or foreign support. Turkish airplane is not opposition airplane, it is incident probably connected with Syrian internal conflict, but we don't have reliable information about this connection.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 13:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Still...the Turks are turning a blind eye to the shipment of arms and fighters over their border to the rebels. And are housing and guarding the rebels military command. EkoGraf (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that Turkey support opposition in Syria, but one incident does not mean that Turkey attack Syria or that these two countries are in war as infobox suggest. In infobox it seems that there are some huge war in Middle East (Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Qatar, Syria etc).--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think we should wait until this title dispute is over. An "uprising" usually indicates a group of rebels against an already implemented army. If the title stays as "Civil War", then we can change to a military conflict infobox. -- Luke (Talk) 15:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's military infobox is not just for wars, but also for armed uprisings, in essence for any armed conflict. If you don't believe me check it. Dozens of articles on decades old border conflicts like the Cambodia-Thailand row also uses the military infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The dispute is over by consensus process I think. To answer Vojvodae, the fund and support category make it clear that there is no "huge war in middle east" --Maldonado91 (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

For me problem is not military infobox but content of it. If you one border incident describe as combat lose it seem that Turkey is in war with Syria what is not truth. I don't have problem with type of infobox but I think that we must be more careful when write articles about current events.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 17:46, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the {{Infobox military conflict}} since the article was moved back to original title. -- Luke (Talk) 02:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, your reason is not logical Luk3, military conflict infoboxes are used for uprisings as well cause they are also of an armed nature. EkoGraf (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks like bloody mess. I shall keep my hands away from it for at least week to see what consensus will be established, but IMO Funded and supported states should be removed, otherwise you can easily add UK, France and USA to opposition side (all admit to sending non-lethal equipment) and Russia, North Korea and China on government side. Result is that you just invented third world war. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes and before I forgett, same goes for foreigner fighters part. Journalists which were in Syria all, to one, claim to have never seen any foreign fighter. It is certain that there are some, but their number is low, up to point of irrelevancy. After all, IRGC commander confirmed that he sent his soldiers there, yet we are not adding foreign fighters to government section. Beside nearly all conflicts involved foreign fighters in one way or another, there were Egyptians and Tunisians fighting on the rebel side in Libya, while Malians, Nigerians and others on Gaddafi side. As for Fatah al-Islam, 30 bloody fighters is nowhere near notable. That number of soldiers and rebels is killed on daily basis. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Saying that journalists who went to Syria never saw foreign fighters is incorrect. Just recently a number of news articles have emerged about the foreign fighter presence in Syria, most Lebanese but also others. There was an article about 300 Lebanese FSA fighters training just over the border. And the Washington post has put out a number of 500-900 foreign rebels overall being in Syria, source is in the infobox. That is not a small number. Also, most of the major suicide car bomb attacks have by this point been confirmed to be the work of the Al Nusra front, which is mainly comprised of foreigners, thus their presence is notable. EkoGraf (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not incorrect, I formulated my sentence because I knew that someone will pull this. Those reports are based on government and intelligence sources which are reliable, but my point about journalist not witnessing them stands. As for al-Nusra, I don´t know where you found out that they are mostly foreign, I saw no such report. 500 foreigners are 2 military companies, not that much given that we are talking about fighting force that is able to battle military organization that had prior to this conflict 300,000 professional soldiers in their service for almost a year and is gaining ground, instead of loosing. 300 Lebanese from Bekka valley - although foreigner we may take into consideration that clans and families from Bekka valley extend to both part of borders, similiary to Deir ez-Zor where Iraqi sunni tribes are smuggling weapons because their offshot tribe joined armed opposition on other side of border. IRGC and Hezbollah are also foreigner had their combined presence be 500 men it is not even noticable. Syrian army fields that much soldiers to small villages with not significant rebel presence sometimes, their numbers in large battleground as Homs counts in tens of thousands. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, I somehow over-fought my own laziness and managed to read the reference to foreign fighters. I shall present few snaps from that material

Although no reliable data is available regarding the number of foreign fighters in Syria, many sources have discussed their presence.

It is worth noting that the Assad regime has identified only around forty individuals as jihadists, according to a list Damascus sent to the UN in May.

Lebanese group Fatah al-Islam and the multinational Abdullah Azzam Brigades have also crossed into Syria; they are not fighting under those banners, however, but simply as "mujahedin." this is pretty nice quote regarding my previous questions about needlessness of having Fatah al-Islam in the infobox

French media reported in December that a Libyan detachment led by Abd al-Mehdi al-Harati -- a close associate of Abdul Hakim Belhaj, former leader of the defunct Libyan Islamic Fighting Group -- had joined the conflict. al-Harati is not close associate of Belhadj, for Christ sake. Belhadj was commander of Derna militia, Harati of Tripoli militia. They fought together during battle of Tripoli, but Harati was Irish-Libyan who never met him. Seriously, stupid wikipedian knows more than guys who get paid for this stuff </endoftherant>

There is no hard evidence that the homegrown jihadist group Jabhat al-Nusra has recruited foreign fighters, but at least some of them have likely connected with the movement. regarding what you said

Although the trickle of foreign fighters into Syria seems to have picked up in recent months, they still comprise a very small portion of those battling the Assad regime. Any verified evidence of such fighters no doubt plays into Assad's rhetoric, but he has grossly exaggerated a small phenomenon -- all estimates indicate that well over 90 percent of the fighters are Syrian and non-jihadist.

foreign fighters in Syria have yet to have a known force-multiplying effect on the level seen in Iraq

TL;DR the source itself says that their presence is nowhere near significance of Afghanistan or Iraq (where those chaps are included), source also says that those 30 (!) Fatah al-Islam fighters are not operating under group flag and also says that al-Nusra is domestic, not foreign. So let´s remove those foreign fighters and Fatah al-Islam together with unverified claims about casualties of Hezbollah or whatnot. Shall we? EllsworthSK (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, there is here for 4 days, arguments are pretty strong and don´t say they are not as source which you used as reference says that presence of foreign fighters is not notable while FaI is not fighting under banner of FaI. If no one has anything against it, I shall be removing it. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The Washington post source at the same time confirms that 10 percent of the FSA fighters are foreign. They even cite a number of 500-900. That is not a small number and their role in the conflict has been talked about at length in many recent articles. Yes, Fatah al-Islam's group was estimated to be just 30 back in March-April and that is not much. However, recently there was an article that stated almost all of the Lebanese fighters joining the FSA are under the overall command of Fatah. And the Lebanese are estimated to be around 300 and rising. Also, the presence of Fatah is notable given they were the main instigator of the Lebanese conflict from 2007 so are thus a Lebanese player. Overall the presence of the foreigners, though still only estimated to be 10 percent of the rebels, is still highly notable. It's being mentioned constantly in the media as being the main fear of not just the various governments who barely support the rebels but of the rebels themselves. Just today there was a CNN report in which an FSA commander confirmed the foreign presence is still small but that he is highly concerned that their numbers are rising. So the foreigners are a combatant in the conflict however you look at it. EkoGraf (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Eko, I already reacted on it in the first post. Their role in the conflict has been indeed discussed extensively, but pinpoint me where do those sources state that they play significant role in the conflict. Most sources talk about these fighters because of fears of Syria becoming hotbed for them as Iraq or Afghanistan. Once again, see quotes above which says that so far they are not significant enough to be put on level of, once again, Iraq or Afghanistan. By placing them to infobox, which is reserved for notable participants in the conflict, we are giving them on same as level as Syrian security forces (military and paramilitary - meaning Shabiha) and FSA. That goes against WP:DUE. Or let´s take Libyan civil war as an example, one MiG-23 which was downed by rebels near Ras Lanuf was flown by Libyan and Syrian pilot. Should we add Syria as participant in the conflict because of that (they already did so on Russian wiki for reasons unknown to me)? Or Yemeni revolution where foreign fighters (Somalians from al-Shabaab and Arab fighters) operating under flag of Ansar al-Sharia and AQAP played significant actual role in the conflict (took control of nearly 2 provinces and were used as bargaining chip by Ali Abdullah Saleh)? Maybe better example would be Iraqi war, where role of PMCs (as Blackwater) was extremely, extensively discussed by all media, Arabs are using it up until today, together with Abu Ghraib, as rallying cry against United States, despite being only several hundred strong in numbers and only few dozens even got under enemy fire? No because that would make infobox unbalanced.

As for Fatah al-Islam, that is Palestinian group. Based in Lebanese refugee camps, but Palestinian (under 1969 agreement these camps are completely autonomous and state security forces cannot enter them. Lebanese government was simply in 07 fed up with them and went in anyway). Please give me that article which says that Lebanese (from Bekka valley which have tribial and clan connections with Syrians on the other side of the border) are under Fatah al-Islam command, because that is ridiculous. Also there were clashes in Tripoli several times in last year, as you surely know. None of them included Fatah al-Islam. Plus source above states that they are not operating under flag of Fatah al-Islam. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

If you would check the Iraq war article you would see that the contractors are in the infobox there and their number was in fact 6,000-7,000 and not just several hundred as you say. Also, I disagree that only a few dozen were under enemy fire. The Iraq infobox clearly lists more than 1,500 to have died in the war. Let me get right down to it. The foreign fighters are there, they are almost a thousand strong and the number is rising, they operate only nominally under the FSA (who don't want to have anything to do with them and are thus basically separate from them), they are talked about in the media at least once a week if not more, and the foreign guys are behind several of the mass suicide bombings which have been reported on extensively (confirmed on at least one occasion by the UN chief Ban Ki Mun). All that fits the criteria of notability. And everything is properly referenced with reliable sources. Notability and verifiability, prime principles of Wikipedia. I don't see how it causes the infobox to be unbalanced. I will try to look up that source you requested, but it was almost a month since I read that article. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I did and they are enlisted in casualties, not as combatants. Also most of those casualties were killed by IEDs, not during armed clashes as majority of contractors were of non-military nature. And let me react from the end. Suicide bombings were claimed by Nusra. Nusra, as above source says, are local jihadists. Not foreign. Next, media talk about them out of fear of becoming something more - hotbed for them as in Iraq, but do not overestimate their presence which is marginal as, once again, source above clearly states. Bytheway those 300 Lebanese operate in Homs under FSA banner and under FSA command, jihadists from Iraq and other MENA regions tend to operate separately. In the end I noted that you did not react on Fatah al-Islam. Should I take it as your agreement for its removal? EllsworthSK (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Hezbollah included in the casualties

Hezbollah is known to provide some sort of political support for the Syrian government. But come on... You can't really include Hezbollah casualties since "yalibnan.com" states so? That site is well known to be against the Hezbollah and Iran in general and provides a lot of materials with no substance. Where's the source criticism on Wikipedia that is usually of a high standard here??!

If you intend to keep it, at least move it to another section and put it as "allegation of militarily involvement". Because, quite frankly, those who reads this page won't check if this is true or not. They will just believe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.185.238 (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of what is in this article is based on opposition sources which are against the Syrian government, but we still use them. Besides, the other source is Stratfor. EkoGraf (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yalibnan has always been staunchly anti-Syrian (it was created in relation to the "Cedar Revolution", and is pro-Future Movement/Saudi), so they're certainly not neutral in this, and would publish any rumour, provided it is anti-Syrian. As for Ekograf's argument, those other claims are published in less biased outlets. And what does stratfor say? That there are "claims" or some such? Not strong enough for inclusion in the infobox at least. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Bottom line - is Yalibnan unreliable? I'm experienced in well provided info in the website, but i could be wrongGreyshark09 (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps reliable enough for a mention, but not for infobox inclusion. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of everything in the article are "claims", nothing is definetly confirmed. All depends on a person's point of view. The number of government troops killed is based on an opposition source which is anti-Assad thus not neutral but we still use it. If you feel so strongly about it we can add next to the numbers that those are opposition claims (all figures came from defecting soldiers that joined the FSA) so the reader can form his own point of view. I will add to the infobox who is claiming it. Besides, these are just the only sources that have given a definite number of Hezbollah and Iranian dead. The FSA and the SNC have been saying for almost a year that Iranians and Hezbollah are in the field, which can be found in dozens of sources. And so based on this I am noting in the infobox it is based on opposition claims. EkoGraf (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are many claims, but yet again, only widely reported (by good sources) claims should be featured in the infobox. FunkMonk (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)