Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Lebanese Terrorist

Michel Samaha, Lebanon's former information minister, was arrested for attempting to bomb the Future Bloc of the Lebanese Parliament to create a sectarian rift, on orders from Bashar Assad and Ali Mamluk. Evidence of this is caught on video where he is seen handling bombs and saying "This is what assad wants" to Mamluk. Samaha has confessed to planning these attacks for Assad. One should keep in mind that the Current Lebanese government was pro-assad, so they are not kidding around here.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0810/Former-Lebanese-minister-arrested-for-planning-attacks-for-Syria-s-Assad Sopher99 (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This belongs in the international section, or the sectarian section. Sopher99 (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a fishy story, he was arrested by the same Hariri owned intelligence branch which wrongly arrested the "four generals" for the Hariri bombing. Now they say an MP personally drove around with explosives in his car planting bombs? Sure. Let's wait and see where the story goes before jumping on the band-wagon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in the Syrian civil war article, let alone in the lead. Syria-Lebanon relations are complex (Syria having occupied the country for three decades) and aren't limited to this uprising. As far as I can see, there are no indications that Michel Samaha's alleged crimes and his arrest are linked to the uprising. The news of Samaha's arrest belongs in an article such as Lebanon–Syria relations rather than here. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As a September update, Lebanon has found that this directly involves Assad, and Samaha was convicted in a court. Sopher99 (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Still, this doesn't make this connected to the Syrian uprising. Not everything involving Assad has to do with this uprising, you know. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Human Fights Watch

Please ignore this post. A typo with "R" and "F" which are so close on this smart phone. I have reposted below. Special:Contributions/68.81.112.168.81.117 (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC) Adan

Infobox - Russia

Since there is a non-stopping edit-warring in the infobox section, i suggest to make a poll whether to include Russia as a military and intelligence support for the Syrian Regime in the infobox . Please vote support or oppose on inclusion of those countries as combatants. Alhanuty (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

No, we won't take a poll. WP:DEMOCRACY. If majority of users would say we add for example, the Planet of Mars supporting Syria, would we do that? No. You must understand the difference between selling and sending. --Wüstenfuchs 15:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

i understand,but there is alot of edit warring over the issue so,let take a poll over it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 15:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Poor example. No RS describes Martian arms being supplied to Syria or Martian political pressure being used to keep Syria free of global sanctions. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose -Russia should not be mentionned in the infobox, this is against the reality and pure propagand. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and United States are giving weapons and intelligence to rebels in hope they will destabilize the syrian governement. Russia is selling weapons in a state to state normal relation. They are selling weapons to a large panel of countries like they do with Syria. This is professional business. --DanielUmel (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

lets take take a poll DanielUmel so,that edit warring over Russia ends . Alhanuty (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose -It's just a trade agreement. It's not the same thing as supplying a side with war materials for free with the intention of harming the opposing side.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 15:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. A country blocks efforts to sanction a partisan side and ships lethal materials to that side, and suddenly it's "just professional" and "business as usual"? Sorry, not buying it. A number of editors in the last RfC expressed opinions along the lines of "well without XYZ countries supporting them, the rebels would be nothing and it's important to show that". Fair enough. But why is this standard not uniformly applied? Where would the Syrian government be without their friends in Moscow keeping them stocked with guns and free from UN-imposed sanctions? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• • Comment: Countries don't need to obey the UN decisions and at the same time those countries don't violate the international law... So, we add China, India, Kazakhstan, Russia and half of the world as they haven't imposed sanctions on Syria. And let me remind you, the santions weren't approved by the Security Council. --Wüstenfuchs 23:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
    • Uhm, you understood approximately none of what I said. The UN has not sanctioned Syria. Why is this? Because China and Russia wield veto power [1]. You do understand how the Security Council actually works, don't you? This doesn't have anything to do with merely not imposing sanctions. This is actively stopping efforts to impose them and supplying weapons to that party in a state of open warfare. "International law" is a red herring here. Fact of the matter is, Russia is providing a huge amount of support to Syria, and regardless of whether or not you want to dress that up with the mobspeak label of "business", it makes Russia as much of an active part in the conflict as any of the Western countries listed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
      • You are wrong, so if Russia doesn't support the santcions it means they are pro-Assad, so in order to become neutral you must support sanctions... leave it out. --Wüstenfuchs 13:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
        • "You are wrong" Oh man, what a quality argument. Allow me to respond in kind: [2]. You seem to be incapable of basic arithmetic, so I'll put 2 and 2 together for you. Blocking sanctions alone is not what I'm talking about. Blocking sanctions *and* preferentially supplying one side with lethal weapons and training that side to use said weapons is. Real "neutrality" would be blocking sanctions and suspending arms shipments. Russia has not done the latter, and has instead continued to pour gasoline into the growing flames. "Just business" is a smokescreen and is sheer mobspeak. We have RS like the New York Times saying that "Russia has been the lifeline for President Bashar al-Assad throughout the conflict, providing weapons and diplomatic support to help keep his government afloat. In turn, Russia has castigated the United States for its support of opposition forces". And The Guardian: "Russia also has said it has military advisers in Syria training the Syrians to use Russian weapons, and has helped repair and maintain Syrian weapons." Please explain to me how any of this describes a "neutral" disposition. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
          • Nope... they can sell what ever they want. You are not the one who will say what is neutral and what isn't. Syria is not under arms embargo. It's same like selling food, the army also needs to eat. --Wüstenfuchs 14:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
            • You were the one to inject neutrality here; now you're just backpedalling. No, food is not the same as lethal weapons and training. Food is not directly used to kill other Syrians. "Legality" is a red herring. The fact that support is given "legally" or "illegally", whether it is in the form of "aid" or "contracts" does not change the fact that it is support. See my comment at the bottom of the semantics section below. Support is support. Russian support for the regime has had a greater effect on the conflict than Germany having a boat offshore monitoring troop movements. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Frankly, this all arguments against are semantics, nothing more. Is Russia supplying Assad regime with means to continue its fight against armed opposition? It is. Are Russian government actions further strengthening military capacity of Syrian army and its allied militias? They are. And that does not only apply to arms, helicopters, trainers and such but also to vital supplies like oil, printing of money after it was banned in Europe etc. Russian actions certainly supports Syrian regime in a similar way that Turkish, French and US actions support Syrian opposition. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Russia has MILITARY ADVISORS in Syria.... [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoorichter (talk • contribs) 15:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. That the other "it's complicated" stuff is in the infobox is also undesirable. The infobox is supposed to be a quick snapshot that has no illusions of being thorough - we have an entire article for that, and we can have entire articles (e.g. France in the American Civil War or Allies of World War II) to explain the very complicated details. It's an infobox, keep it simple. A Counterproposal would be to have the two primary parties in the infobox, and an article for each side on who supports them, linked from the infobox, much like the WW2 article. 150.148.0.65 (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• • I completely agree. Including non-belligerent supporting parties overly complicates the infobox at best and is deliberately misleading at worst. But either way, there needs to be a balanced presentation, and right now certain editors are allowing their personal feelings about the conflict to get in the way of WP:NPOV. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• • This is quite acceptable. Either Russia goes in the box, or everyone else comes out of the box. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Based on the criteria for inclusion of other parties, and the importance of Russia's arms shipments to the government. And by the way, these aren't just any weapons- they include attack helicopters and missile defense systems, which obviously aren't so easy for the Syrian government to otherwise obtain via weapon smuggling. They aren't just trying to get a good deal. --Yalens (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support Russia is indisputably helping Assad militarily, economically, and politically. Moester101 (talk) 06:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - Fulfilling existing arms contracts is not the same as supporting the government in this uprising. For instance, the USA has been selling arms to Bahrain for years and continues to do so; yet the US isn't listed as a belligerent in Bahraini uprising (2011–present). There's no reliable source for the claim that Russia has sent troops to aid Assad – a rather improbable claim, too, as the Syrian army is large enough for Assad not to require foreign troops to help him. As for the warships: there's a Russian navy base at Tartous, of course Russian warships will be docking there. That's not supporting Assad. Copy-paste from an earlier discussion, before this became a !vote. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Difference between selling and aiding

There are three sources that are apparently "supporting" the claim that Russia is actually aiding Syria with weapons. Now, there is a difference between selling and aiding (giving arms for free respectively).

I'm not a native English speaker, however, google gives those definitions for:

• selling - "Give or hand over (something) in exchange for money: "they had sold the car"."
• aiding / giving - "Help, assist, or support (someone or something) in the achievement of something." / "Freely transfer the possession of (something) to (someone); hand over to: "they gave her water"."

First source has title "Is Russia Sending Troops to Syria?". We can have two answers here - yes and no. The answer is yes, but they are sending the troops to their, Russian, base in Syria. Think like this, is USA aiding Bahrain's or Saudi's regimes against the protesters there just beacuse they are sending their ships there? :) No.

The second source is RT's "Russia will continue to supply weapons to Syria by contracts", now, when one would add RT's claim that Kosovo is aiding the rebels the answer was - RT is not reliable it's government-owned TV network. Why I can't see the same argument over this claim? Even though the title is very clear, Russia will contiune to sell arms to Syria not giving arms.

The thir source is unreliable Pravda... "Russian warships in Syria: Any guesses?", Russian warships in their own base in Syira? How dare they? --Wüstenfuchs 15:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong on that one. A vegetable seller is actively supporting you if he accept to sell his carrots. That's the logic here. --DanielUmel (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

So what's our criteria? Maybe Turkey is selling arms, but for a really good deal. If they accept cash payment, does that mean they're supporting or just a neutral party that happens to have a contract to sell weapons? What if Qatar isn't taking money, but it's getting something out of the deal another way (say, the way Russia is getting a naval base on the Mediterranean out of supporting the Syrian government, for example)? That's the nature of most alliances -- most are alliances of convenience in some way or another. Russia is arming Assad; Turkey is are arming the rebels. If one is in the infobox, both must be. Otherwise there's no consensus from this quarter to include either of them. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

What if, what if... we aren't speaking of "what if", but what sources say, and the sources say that those countries are either giving or aiding rebels wich isn't equal with selling at all. And good point over there Daniel... For example, I'm going to rob a bank and I buy a crowbar, so police arrests the merchant because he supported me. --Wüstenfuchs 18:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Foxy, you're the king of bad examples. A better example is: I want to rob a bank, so I go to buy a gun (who the hell robs a bank with something as clumsy as a crowbar?). I openly talk with the merchant about how I am going to rob a bank with it. The merchant is aware of what I am going to do with that gun, as are all of the other customers in the store. The merchant then comes with me outside of the bank and gives me demonstrations on how to use the gun in full public view. If the merchant sells me the gun in full knowledge that I am going to commit a violent crime with it and provides instruction on its use, he may be reasonably considered to be aiding and abetting, maybe even complicit in conspiracy. Selling arms and providing advisors to the Syrian government right now is no different. The government is in a state of open warfare with a section of its populace, and the entire world (Russia included) is fully aware of it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and United States are shipping weapons for free, it has already been established. They also admit backing the rebels against the Syrian governement. There are no proofs that Russia is doing more than normal business in Syria and calling for a negociated solution between all parts. There is just no solid material on Russian support. If refusing a foreign invasion or foreign sanctions in Syria is now a mark of support, Wikipedia has reached new low. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You're delusional. Read the refs. And there is no such thing as doing "normal business" with a government that is destroying its own cities and killing its own people. It's a civil war and Russia, by sending weapons to the Syrians and warships to the coast, is involved far more than the United States is. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Russia is not involved in this civil war. They are fullfilling contract with a country which is not under sanctions. You don't like it but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that go with facts. --DanielUmel (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

So it's ok to try and slant the article to push the notion that one side is used as a "tool" because some countries are supplying bandages and body armour, but if a country repeatedly blocks efforts [4] to sanction the other side and continues to ship real, lethal weapons to it, it's just "business as usual"? Man, you wouldn't know "facts" if they hit you square in the face. I'd take you more seriously if you demonstrated even a token commitment to NPOV, but you really don't even pretend to. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

They are providing weapons to and providing political cover for a faction in a civil war -- just as Turkey and Saudi Arabia are. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't get it do you... it's not like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, unlike those two, Russia doesn't support any side of the war and it's not giving but selling arms. --Wüstenfuchs 23:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Selling arms. Just because they get some rubles on government account it somehow makes it different from KSA provision of Steyrs from which in return they get interest. Russia is covering Assad politically, that is acknowledged fact, they are supporting him with more and more arms deliveries as well. And I am not even mentioning North Korea [5] whose support was acknowledged by UN and which is under UN weapons ban. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The FSA and the Government of Syria don't have the same status, the FSA is illegal, criminal organization (according to the international law) while the Government isn't. This same government is able to make contracts as they wish as they are representative of a nation, which isn't the case with the FSA or the SNC. Second, Russia sticking to the international law and opposing foreign intervention doesn't mean it's supporting al-Assad but supporting the will of the Syrian people, ie, Russia is leting them to sort out things by themselves. So any country trading with Syria is actually pro-Assad? Not at all. It's like USA supporting regimes of Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, which are more brutal then Assad's regime is, just because they are trading with them and refuse to impose some sort of an embargo on them because they are killing innocent people, which is what they are doing. --Wüstenfuchs 23:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

the FSA is illegal, criminal organization (according to the international law) could you post some source for that? Some UNGA or UNSC resolution telling this. Maybe the extent from international law. Also indirectly saying, and heavily implying, that will of Assad is will of Syrian people is something I did not expect from you. As for Bahrain and KSA, both autocratic monarchies which suppress any opposition, they are not right now anywhere near current Syrian level of human rights abuse. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

the Assad regime is the most brutal regime in the area ,this regime kills women and child and make interviews with people who are going to die . bahrain and saudi arabia may be some inregularites in human rights, but assad regime cannot be compared,this regime has used illegal weapons ,killing people who are calling for freedom . Alhanuty (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

"Legality" is not the standard of inclusion here. "Aid" is not the standard of inclusion here. "Support" is:

support, n.

• The action or an act of helping a person or thing to hold firm or not to give way; provision of assistance or backing.
• The provision or availability of services that enable something to fulfil its function or help to keep it operational.
• The action of preventing failure, exhaustion, or perishing; provision of necessary resources.

Russia indisputably performs the listed functions. It is thus a source of support for the Syrian government. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

De facto support?

"Throughout the conflict, Russia has been the lifeline for President Bashar al-Assad, providing weapons and diplomatic support to help keep his government afloat." (New York Times) [6]

The supporters do have a fair point. Russia is playing a somewhat important role. However, including Russia in the infobox is very misleading and POV. In the UN resolution debates, Russia is looking at the conflict from a neutral perspective, urging cooperation from both the government and the rebels, rather than just condemning Assad, which was what the West was doing. From the Western perspective, Russia is supporting Assad, but in reality, Russia is more neutral than the US, which is clearly anti-Assad and pro-opposition. Russian support should be highlighted in the article, but not in the infobox. -- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Russia is not neutral. It's arming Assad and defending him at the UN despite the actions of his government. Look, I am by no means blind to the abuses perpetrated by the rebels, the jihadist element among them, or the fact that Saudi Arabia, one of the more vociferous anti-Assad regimes (which I am by no means convinced belongs in the infobox, seeing as that there is no proof of Saudi Arabian troops in Syria), has an awful human rights record in its own regard. But the Syrian regime is clearly carrying out some disturbing acts of violence against its own people, and Russia has backed it to the hilt -- providing verbal cover for its claims that all the rebels are "armed terrorist gangs" and "foreign mercenaries", continuing to send it weapons even though Assad is basically out of money and is obviously using Russian arms to wage civil war, sending troops and warships to guard its naval base at Tartus that is leased from the Syrian government, blocking attempts at UN sanctions, and the like. If we're including the United States and Western powers -- in fact, I'd say if we're including any country that has sent weapons to any side in Syria, as opposed to combat troops a la Iran -- then Russia must be in the infobox as well. Personally, I think none of them should be considered belligerents at all, and a prominent section of the article should discuss foreign involvement. I'd be happy to work on compromise language if we can agree to keep the infobox to factions with a factually established armed presence. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Actions of the government, how about actions of the FSA? You think the FSA is a "good guy" here... it's your own personal oppinion. Stop with this nonsense. Assad's government is like any other government in the world. Put it like this, Russia is protecting Syrians against Islamist laws... why we wouldn't observe this in this way? The discussion how guilty is the government will get us nowhere. If one would follow your logic then you could add China, Kongo, Zimbabwe, India, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Sudan, Palestine... they haven't imposed sanctions and are trading with Syria, some are trading arms others do the oragnes... what's the difference? --Wüstenfuchs 13:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

"Russia is protecting Syrians against Islamist laws"? So you admit Russia is protecting the Syrian government. It should be in the infobox if the other countries that are sending military supplies to Syria are. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

An argument chart

This is getting ridiculous, let's end this soon. Here is a summary of arguments and my counter-arguments:

Argument	Counter-argument
Russia is blocking UN sanctions and intervention.	That's political support (sort of). Infobox is for military stuff. Plus, Russia is more neutral than the West, who are clearly anti-Assad.
Russia is supplying Syria with weapons.	Russia is (or was) selling arms to Syria. Russia sells arms to other countries too. It's a normal trade relationship. Russia sells arms to make money, not to support allies. As this [BBC video shows], selling arms does not mean brothers in arms.
We included the US, UK, France and Germany. Russia's position is similar to those other countries.	Those other countries are directly helping the rebels by supplying nonlethal military supplies and intelligence, which is completely different from legally selling arms.
Russia has troops in Syria.	Russia has troops in its Tartus naval base. They are not fighting rebels.
Russia has advisers in Syria.	The advisers are training Syrian soldiers how to use Russian weapons, as part of the trade agreement. That's it. They're not involved in the fighting.

I hope this helps.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I would add that voting no to a proposed resolution is not equal to a political support. It is just being against the resolution. Some people here think that if your are not blindly following the western policy against a country you are supporting it.

Not wanting to attack or take sanction against a country does not equal support.

I agree we remove Russia... certain users desperatly want to add Russia without any serious argument... if it was about the resolution then it's not Russia only that is involved (the countries that opposed the resoluton were: Belarus, Bolivia, China, Cuba, North Korea, Ecuador, Iran, Nicaragua, Russia, Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe), and it's a politicial decision also. --Wüstenfuchs 15:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Any serious argument? You ignored my post, you and Daniel now removed Russia even though this discussion is ongoing. Infobox states that Russia is providing military support to Syria, fact that you yourself do not deny. You just say that it is legal, biding treaty between the states. That doesn´t make it any less military support. It is not like we do not have a LOT of sources stating that Russia supports Assad so it is not some kind of OR, POV or whatever, but sourced argument. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

For comparison let´s take a look at Vietnam War article where we have China, Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia etc as supporting North Vietnam. Those were all binding, legal contracts that WP countries had with NV, weren´t they? EllsworthSK (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Russia more neutral than the West? Pure opinion. Russia's President Putin has blamed the violence on the rebels, while Russia, unlike any Western country, has openly supplied a faction in the Syrian war with weapons and sent military advisers to the country. There is no such thing as "business as usual" when you're dealing with a civil war. Continuing to sell weapons to a faction that is engaged in military action is taking a side; continuing to sell weapons to a government that is killing its people is de facto supporting that government. Personally, I don't think any of these countries should be in the infobox at all except for Iran and maybe Turkey, but this double standard is ridiculous and exposes the pro-Assad bias of certain editors here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

in the link funkmonk added from the new york times,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 it says 'the potential inclination toward intolerant or sectarian Islamist politics — has deterred the West from more muscular support for the cause of Mr. Assad’s ouster. ' -i know funkmonk added it to kind of crow and push a pro-Assad regime pov but even this sentence throws a light on the level of support 'the West' is delivering - and this contrasts with the Russian position and Putin/Russia attitudes - which were abundantly clear in his latest rant in his most recent interview Sayerslle (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion results

WP:STRAWPOLL, WP:NOTDEM

This is a summary of opinions from this discussion and previous ones. “Should Russia be included in the infobox?” Last updated by: Futuretrillionaire (talk) 1:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC) Support (6): Kudzu1, Lothar von Richthofen, EllsworthSK, Zoorichter, Moester101, Sayerslle Oppose (10): Wüstenfuchs, Futuretrillionaire, DanielUmel, The Anome, Chiton, HammerFilmFan, Smalltime0, Taalverbeteraar, 150.148.0.65, Paul Bedson Can I request that whoever added this also remove it? Counting is irrelevant. 150.148.0.65 (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Mediation

Jesus, making peace between Assad and the FSA is going to be easier than finding a consensus here. I've sent a request for mediation. -- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hehe, I hope this will solve the problem. --Wüstenfuchs 15:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I haven't reached consensus myself yet and I was edit-warring the Russian flag into the infobox in June when the attack helicopters were in delivery. The British stopped the Syrian vessel Alaed and it returned those helicopters, it never docked in Syria (I was tracking it). For that reason, and because I cannot find any verifiable sources about arms shipments to Syria, perhaps the efforts of the Russians not to publicize them, (although someone who can speak Russian and is familiar with WikiLeaks Syria Files might turn up more than me on this) I would now tentatively oppose with Futuretrillionaire et al. Any evidence of arms shipments from Russia to Syria would quickly persuade me otherwise though as I really don't see any difference between aiding and selling to a murderous regime. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

russia has said it has military specialists in Syria to assist the Syrian govt - this is reuters 4 sep 2012 [7]- and the same voices happy to shove in canada as a belligerent . get hysterical if the fatuous claim of russian neutrality is ridiculed - pov explains that (im)pure and simple - one of them said somehwere here - everything the Syrian government has said has been proven to be true, and that rebels lie - that is the pov fundamentalism one is up against. Sayerslle (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

How do we make this a B class article???

According to the military history project template at the top of this talk page, we've met 4/5 of the criteria for a B-class article. The one it hasn't met is "Coverage and accuracy", which means the article needs to "reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies"

What??? This article covers a lot, what's missing? Is something not accurate?

I don't understand. What exactly do we need to do?-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If you think it meets the criteria, change it. B-class is not a formal review process. 150.148.0.65 (talk) 14:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. But first I want to hear others' thoughts on this. A consensus on upgrading this article to B-Class would be nice.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 13:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Well I think that the article really doesn't meet the "coverage and accuracy" criteria. And I don't believe it will until the civil war is over. --Wüstenfuchs 15:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Foxy's right. Wait for the conflict to be over. It will always be deficient in coverage until then. Plus, y'know, there are the whole infobox wars. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The criterion uses the term "reasonably" and I think it's reasonable to say that the article can be thorough coverage at the time of the change to B-class. If the article becomes outdated, it can be downgraded again. I would bet reasonable amounts of money that the article is inaccurate, given the fog of war, the caveated unconfirmed reports from news agencies, and other realities, but B-class is not FA-class - it simply means that the article is reasonable, not perfect. 150.148.0.65 (talk) 15:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

IP's got a good point. The accuracy and coverage doesn't have to be perfect. It just has to be good enough for B-Class. As long, we are using RS, we should be fine. I think the infobox edit-wars, which has subsided, is not an issue, because infoboxes are classified under the "supporting materials" criteria, which we have already met.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Title all-capitals

Propose to rename this article from "Syrian civil war" to Syrian Civil War - analogy with First World War and First world war. Wakari07 (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The current name is based on consensus and sound arguments. Your proposal therefore qualifies as WP:SNOWBALL. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

[8] We've discussed this endlessly. The answer is no. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Iranian aid on the ground

Straight from the horse's mouth: "A number of Quds Force members are present in Lebanon and Syria... we provide (these countries) with counsel and advice, and transfer experience to them, But it does not mean that we have a military presence there,"[9] This is much more trustworthy than any "eyewitness" claim or whatever. They have no reason to lie. FunkMonk (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand your last two sentences. Iran, up till this day, denies that it supported Mahdis army and other shia Iraqi groups with weaponry despite the mounting evidence on contrary. In that context, in light of Assad being closest Iranian ally and loosing him would cripple Iranian influence in Levant and significantly degrated Hezbollah capabilities it is only logical that Iran would support him. And it is completely logical that if Iran has those troops there, they won´t admit it. They have a lot of reasons to lie, for example they would nuke the Russian argument about position of internal conflict without any intereferance from external factors, Syria hosting Iran troops would be clear violation of UNSC resolution nr. 1929 etc. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing will be "nuked", the West doesn't believe anything Syria or Iran claims even long after it's proven. Iran has nothing to gain from lying, and your interpretations of why they would support Syria militarily is just that, an interpretation. The 400.000 man Syrian army does not exactly need a few Hezbollahis and Iranians running around. FunkMonk (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And so is your interpretation about Iran being honest. Syrian army is and never was 400,000 strong, but 300,000. And that is for a long time not the case. Given that Syrian army is overstretched and needs a "few" pro-government militiamen running around I do not see why it wouldn´t welcome Hezbollah taking care of business in vicinity of Bekka valles and Iran elsewhere. But as you pointed out already, that is nothing more than my interpretation. What now we do have is Iran confirming presence of its military advisors in Syria and sources which states that they also have their combat troops from IRGC. That is not my interpretation. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Syria does not have a 400,000 man army. Less than 1/3 of the military showed up for work (the vast majority of the army are Sunnis), 50k defected, and the lack of troops have become so bad that in July assad pulled troops out of the Golan to fight rebels in Damascus. Great show of "resistance". On top of that they have just recently began force-conscripting people into the army, and they changed the law that anyone 18-25 stopped at checkpoints will be forced to join the army. Sopher99 (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Syrian troops can't be "pulled out of Golan", as you may know, Golan is occupied by Israel. Troops were moved from the border, and if we're lucky, some of the Salafists might take the opportunity to go for a trip down to their friends in Israel. FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

All we have here is Iran finally admitting that they have troops in Syria. That doesn't mean these troops aren't fighting - it'd be natural for Iran to want to avoid getting isolated further, you know people don't always say everything... It's rather late that they even announced they have troops in Syria. So yes, we can use this to say that Iran announced they have troops in Syria - but certainly not to discount that the troops are fighting or providing aid in Syria. --Activism1234 17:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's be honest, the Syrian opposition were lying too, not just the regime itself. And their Arab media supporters like Al-Arabiya, Asharq al-Awsat and Al-Jazeera were making fabrication lies. How do you even have concrete evidence that Iranians were sending troops to Syria to fight alongside the Syrian army? So far all we get is retired Iranian IRGCs, Iranian pilgrims which has nothing to do with the conflicts, and the recent soldiers who came to Syria just for non-lethal aid and threatens intervention. And so just because Syrian opposition accuses them of being Iranian or Hezbollah agent, that makes them FACT? On August, Syrian rebels kidnapped a Lebanese Shia, and claims he was a Hezbollah fighter. But you want to know the truth? He was a Mokdad clan, a Shia clan which has no affliation to any political parties in Lebanon and Syria. And what of few months ago where 40 Iranians were captured? They were turned out to be Iranian pilgrims. If you really want to tell that Iranians were telling lies, bring it up and debunk it. Myronbeg (talk) 06:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes and dozen of them turned out to be, just by great coincidence, ex-IRGC and soldiers what was admitted by Iran itself [10]. As for concrete evidence, if you want to go down this way please show me concrete evidence of AQI (officialy Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn) presence. All you have are reports. As all we have are reports of IRGC activities in Syria. If it would be up to me, I would remove both of them, but it is not. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Then do it. You can't just believe everything what the opposition says is true while whatever the regime says will always tell the lies. This shows how bias and unwise editors you are. I honestly don't know the exact truth because as we know, both the regime and the opposition are lying. But what we do know is that, the opposition side DID have foreign jihadist fighters fighting alongside with the rebels, but as for the Iranians admitting they have troops in Syria, there was no such evidence claiming it was fighting alongside the Syrian army (different from being "ally with Syria"). Myronbeg (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I did. I was reverted. Consensus was against me so I cannot. And funny thing how you got managed to twist my words from "if it would be up to me I would remove both (AQI and Iran/HA)" to "regime bad, opposition good". If you read the sources in the infobox, none of them comes from opposition. And this semantics - If Obama would now say on press conference that he US has troops with Syria I wonder how many editors would jump in here and would be against adding US to combatants on ground that he didn´t say there were fighting. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

200k

I see that the bytes are now 212k. Any chance we can bring it down to 199? Pages 200k plus tend to hurt the servers, and making editing impossibly slow. Sopher99 (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I am working on trying to summarize the "Uprising and civil war" section, which now looks more like a timeline. By the way, where is the size of the article indicated? I'm having trouble finding it.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, this page lags like nobody's business. Major reductions should be considered. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm working on cleaning up lots of small reference things. I just did a first pass, and I cut out nearly 2k of truly useless stuff, like adding .com after a publisher, or having the publisher's name in the title of a citation. Jeancey (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a step in the right direction, at least. Might only get us a few k down, though, and this page is long past the point where that will make a huge difference. We should discuss (re)moving chunks of content. The page is also very long and cumbersome to read. It should be done deliberately and with proper discussion though—none of the machete jobs done by User:Oxycut. We should start by identifying sections that are too long or are not quite important enough to be part of the main article. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Possibly the Uprising and civil war section? There seems to be a lot of specific info and dates in there, maybe there is a way to make it more of an overview, rather than so many specifics? Jeancey (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Specifics should be saved for the smaller articles, I agree. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I just condensed a lot of stuff in the lede, using newer sources that contained the same information. By my reckoning, we have cut nearly 10k from the article by simply condensing verbose sentences and cleaning up references. Hopefully this means that there is more we can do without igniting any edit wars. Jeancey (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I need a break, so I'll stop for now, but we did manage to cut it down by 14k or so, and it is now under 200k. We should definitely continue though, since it's just going to get out of hand again if we don't. Jeancey (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been creeping up again, now around 208k. We really need to consider cutting/exporting content now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to start with the lede, as some of those paragraphs are super long, especially that last one. Maybe if we simply state that both sides have been accused of abuses, and that refugees have fled to neighboring countries. That way, the exact abuses don't need to be detailed (they are stated later in the article) and the exact countries that the refugees are going to don't have to be listed, along with their references (these are also stated later in the article). I tried to do this before, but someone ended up reverting it without a edit summary and I didn't want to start any more edit wars so I left it alone. Jeancey (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

RV Kurdish from infobox

The sources on the infobox dont provide information that the Kurdish are fighting the goverment. It have been reported by many sources that Kurdish are neutral, and some sources saying that Kurdish is backing up the goverment :[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]Dafranca (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

2012 Syrian Kurdistan campaign. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

They are. They are included in both the infobox, the main article, the above article, the YPG article etc. Lots of sources. True, I wanted Kurds to have their own collum in infobox but general consensus was to separate them with line from FSA. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Those sources come from the time before the PKK and PYD established an agreement which the FSA. The ---- indicates they fight the Syrian government but do not fight alongside the Free Syrian Army (actually they do in Aleppo - See the Battle of Aleppo (2012) page). The last source is not reliable either, as it immediately calls the PKK terrorists. I7laseral (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

EU, USA and UK both have PKK on their terrorist list. Calling PKK terroristic organization thus is not sign of unreliability. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Reliability (RS) is very different than objectivity (NPOV). Don't confuse those - a source can be both reliable and still POVish. The reliability depends on the quality of the source, and it doesn't matter how it calls the PKK, but rather if it has an editorial board.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Eh, The PKK have not "made an agreement with the FSA", but with the Syrian government. The gov has left Kurdish areas for the PKK to annoy Turkey. Even the Turks claim this. Please quit the revisionism. FunkMonk (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That is correct. For example in Aleppo the Army still hasn't attacked Kurdish-held territory. --Wüstenfuchs 18:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That is not what PYD, KNC or YPG says. Instead they report that army attacked one of the Kurdish districts with artillery fire and killed 21 civilians. In retaliation Kurdish forces killed 5 Syrian soldiers, injured others and ransacked remaining government compounds in several cities. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

What's the source? Most articles I've seen go by the other interpretation. FunkMonk (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Check out Kurdistan campaign article. I added it there few days ago. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

And it wasn´t 5 but 3 Syrian soldiers that were killed by YPG. Mea culpa. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The Syrians could easily crush them if they wanted to. They clearly have a deal.[17] And laughable that Erdogan has the guts to blame the Syrians for letting terrorists cross their border. FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Crush here, crush there, so far crushed nothing. I am not interested in what could´ve been and should´ve been. Fact is that they did nothing, that authority was overtaken by KSC which is anti-Assad (both PYD and KNC) and YPG killed several of their soldiers, ransacked their offices and kicked out security personal. And they clearly do not have a deal as for all listed before. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary collapsable lists in the article info box

Just an FYI, they also look like mangled garbage in Safari (web browser). بروليتاريا (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I tried using IE and Firefox, but the collapsible lists on a lot of WP articles till look weird. This seems to be a recent bug, and I'm not sure what's going on. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I'm using Safari as well (v 5.1.7), and everything looks a-ok for me.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Upgrade to version 6.0 already. Also looks messed up on iPhone. بروليتاريا (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, clearly 6.0 has some issues. I'm content with my normally-functioning, slightly-older version. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I think everything is fixed now. For me, the collapsible lists look fine on IE, Firefox and Chrome. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes working on latest version of Safari (on iPhone also). بروليتاريا (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

War map

In the Wikipedia coverage of Libyan Civil War, there was a constantly updated map showing which areas are under government and opposition control. Why there isn't one for Syria? Wandering Courier (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

check this one http://twitpic.com/amdp68 Alhanuty (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Information coming out of Syria is much less reliable than it was in Libya. In Libya, there were international reporters at the frontlines who could usually confirm claims of advances by either side. Not so much for Syria, where media access has been greatly restricted and where the rebels largely don't control distinct chunks of territory as they did in Libya. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Current image is completely unfit, it impies there are "protests", while the country is swept by a bloodbath - 5,000 killed just in August. Better to have at least some kind of map to describe the things of the ground.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Greyshark, the current image is rather missleading. Although there are still protests in some parts, they are mostly small at this point and not continues. The government-rebel fighting has taken over. A collage of images should may be created like for the Libya war article. EkoGraf (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

See this article which includes a PDF map, there are reportedly over 30 rebel groups and no chain of command. Nobody knows what's going on. Green Cardamom (talk) 06:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Didn't we already have a collage for this article a while ago? What happened to it?-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm probably going to get bombarded for doing this, but I made a collage of Syrian war pictures from Wikimedia commons, and added it to the infobox.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 00:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Good. Not perfect, but much better than before. Good job.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we can put up a map? Some of them aren't so bad. http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff194/Kami888/Syrian_Civil_War.png is a good example. At this point we're getting an accurate picture of front lines; the main difference is these have to be collected using a much larger range of sources than in Libya. Grant bud (talk) 05:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Tal Abyad Situation

The "Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war" page states "the Free Syrian took control over the city on September 17 2012." for Tal Abyad and yet the war map still shows the city is being contested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.123.56.207 (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Tal Abyad remains contested according to the latest news: [18] بروليتاريا (talk) 19:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Not anymore! [19] -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Reuters now says its been captured too. [20] 138.123.80.182 (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Border post captured, but fighting ongoing in the town itself. SOHR reported fighting at the town's military and security buildings today. EkoGraf (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Front of Alawite Officers

Come on, this is too much. We now have a group (in the infobox as well) about a unit/organization based on a rumour from one al-Arabiya article naming anonymous source. That is ridiculous. Next article speaks about Alawites within FSA, incorporate it to Free Syrian Army article if you want but it says nothing about some Alawite officer front or whatnot. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

• I requested deletion of Front of Alawite Officers --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion

The info about the rebels capturing border crossings is not included in Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from September 2012). Shouldn't this information be included? Care should be taken to ensure that everything which appears on this article appears in the timeline articles as this article is meant to summarize the more detailed information found in the timeline pages. Am I wrong?--Philpill691 (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

In theory, you are correct. In practice, the timelines are little more than poorly-maintained news dumps that just catch scraps of misfit information. The battle articles are where most editing effort is directed. But you're welcome to add it to the timeline if you see fit. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

Future movement should be added in the infobox, the source clearly mentions about weapon supplies to the operating opposition militias in Idlib and the surrounding region.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The source does not say that. it says that one single man from the future movement is working for Saudi Arabia in coordinating weapons. By this standard we would have to include Russia into the infobox Sopher99 (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Everybody knows that the Future Movement is a puppet in the hands of Saudi Arabia.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 13:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again...Oh and bytheway I could say that Nasrallah and his chihuahua Aoun are puppets in the hands of the Assad. Let´s trash some NPOV right out of the window, shall we? EllsworthSK (talk) 15:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

And to make some points, article talks about one man, acting as a gun runner for KSA, who is member of FM. Not about FM. Add to that WP:FRINGE and it shouldn´t be added. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Mediation has begun

Mediation for the Russia-in-infobox dispute has begun: [21]. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia for really naïve people...

...or is there another reason for the use of the preposterous term 'non-lethal military aid'? Western countries aren't sending over communications equipment so that the rebels can have a nice little chat with each other. And the arms distributed by the CIA aren't going to be used as wall decorations either. Stop the naïvety please. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:31, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

They also use it for phone sex[22], which is rather non-lethal, I'll give them that... FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Atleast its not adultery =) http://www.deltaworld.org/international/Al-Assad-kept-a-mistress-in-United-Kingdom-according-to-Wikileaks/

http://gizmodo.com/5894305/leaked-picture-shows-syrian-dictator-is-not-only-a-bloody-bastard-but-a-cheating-pig-too Sopher99 (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll believe a video over emails any day. One is infinitely easier to fabricate than the other. FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Supreme facepalm of destiny ...no comment... -- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 15:17, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

@Funk Monk, an example of heroism par excellence. --Wüstenfuchs 16:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

In all seriousness, nonlethal military aid generally refers to medicine, body armor, communication equipment, ect. These items tend to make armies much more effective, although they do not directly cause causalities. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

When communication equipment is used to e.g. remotely detonate a bomb, it does directly cause casualties. And when used to e.g. order an attack, it indirectly causes casualties. "Non-lethal military aid" is a myth. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree with your last sentence. The non-lethal military aid is not causing any direct causalities, hence the term "non-lethal". Also, Also, where did you hear that the FSA is using American communication equipment to set off bombs? Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I expect they do, because before they were provided with Western communication equipment they used makeshift devices assembled from garage door openers and such. It stands to reason that, once provided with state-of-the-art communication equipment, they would've started using that instead of their makeshift (and therefore error-prone) contraptions. However, that's beside the point. The mere fact that they could use the communication equipment for setting off bombs makes it potentially lethal aid. Furthermore, the US aren't merely providing communication equipment, they have CIA agents on the ground distributing weapons (see references in article). That can't possibly be described as "non-lethal". - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to use the compromise solution of putting "nonlethal" under quotation marks ("Nonlethal" military aid) to emphasize that it is only their claim that their military aid is nonlethal. --78.0.211.140 (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let's bias the article in favor of the Syrian regime view that the uprising is a Western conspiracy some more. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If we're lucky, the West will learn from recent, Libyan events, pull out of the mess, and voilà, it won't be a Western conspiracy any more. Everyone's happy. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

You do realise Gulf and Turkey and West only supported the arm struggle since May 2012 right. When It was just, and only just protests in 2011 it was still a "foreign conspracy". Also Libya attacks has nothing to do with intervention. And by the way Gaddafi blew up a plane killing 273 americans, remember that? I7laseral (talk) 20:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't imply some crazy conspiracy, it would only quote their claim that their aid is nonlethal, hence the quotation marks. In case of confirmation of their claim by independent reliable sources, quotation marks could be simply removed. --78.0.211.140 (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Western governments have made clear their intention to oust the Assad regime. If that means "conspiracy" to you, I7laseral or Kudzu1, then you can be "conspiracy theorists" together. But to relieve you from paranoia, I'll remind you that governments openly announce and pursue what they perceive to be their strategic interests all the time, and that has nothing to do with conspiracies. -Darouet (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

They have never once said they wanted to oust the regime. They have warned that they could support the FSA if Assad did not stop his campain of violence. The west wants politcal solution, especially during times of Obama poltical election. Obama did not Call for Assad to resign until August 2011. You are making up theories that the west is conspiting against Syria. Sounds like your a conspiracy theorist to me. I7laseral (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I7aseral has no clue of geo-politics. I sugest him to read this article from India: The game plan in Syria [23] [24]. Dafranca (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, touche TaalVerbeteraar. The United States government is in fact giving the Syrians weapons that can be used to directly cause causalities. That being said, why not just remove the word "nonlethal" entirely. It would more accuratley describe the American aid and it would still be an accurate description for France and Britain's aid. (Monlethal military aid is still military aid after all.) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

On contrare. Lethal military aid is armanents and armory. If they are not aid of weapons or mechanized armory, they are non-lethal aid, regardless of how they are used as perks. Zenithfel (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

@Spirit of Eagle: the text originally read non-weapon military supplies, which seems to be a valid term and I would support its use for countries such as France and the UK. Additionally, I think for the US and Germany there should be another collapsible list called "tactical support" because of the CIA agents on the ground coordinating weapons supply and the German ship providing the rebels with intelligence. The "intelligence support" list can then be removed, because all four Western nations are already represented in the infobox. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

is 'the German ship providing the rebels with intelligence' the same as 'Information collected by the ship is passed on to U.S. and British secret services,' - ' who then give it to the Free Syrian Army, Bild said.' a bit of ellision going on there . THe report says -

'Germany is helping Syrian rebels by providing them with information gathered by a German navy vessel off the coast of Syria, a newspaper said on Sunday, without citing sources.' 'A spokesman for the German Defence Ministry said a German navy ship equipped with telecommunications and reconnaissance technology that normally patrols the international waters of the eastern Mediterranean was in a harbour in Sardinia.' it seems pretty flimsy when compared wih the Russian support for the regime - i just wish one felt it wasn't question of pov pushing as determining what appears - like with - 'the CIA agents on the ground coordinating weapons supply' in Taals words- and then when you read it , it says there are some guys trying to keep weapons out of the hands of the extrem-est Islamists - it just seems to me a desire to pesent in the most lurid light certain detils - while dismissing Russian positions as nothing worthy of mention reeks of double standards. distorting. Sayerslle (talk) 10:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been collapsed. Common name describing America's support is "non-lethal".[25][26]. OR not acceptable. -- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Collapsing discussions like you did is only to be done with closed discussions and/or disruptive editing. Collapsing this one wasn't justified, especially as you're neither an administrator, nor impartial. Next time you want a discussion closed, consult an administrator, or better still, start a !vote on closure of the discussion. Don't take the law into your own hands. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Russia in infobox

It's an absolute crock that Russia's addition to the infobox, based on numerous sources (including Russian media) stating it has sent troops and warships to Syria, is being continually reverted by a handful of editors -- the same editors who defend the presence of the likes of Germany and Canada on the opposition side. Russia is actively supplying lethal arms and munitions to a party in this civil war, which no Western country is known to be doing. If it were giving weapons or money for weapons to the rebels, these same editors would be tripping over one another to add it. If we're including Western countries that have done nothing more than provide humanitarian aid to opposition-held districts, we must include Russia, which has sent troops to reinforce its base at Tartus and is shipping weapons of war to the Syrian government for use in the conflict. The double standard is not acceptable. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The "there are no international sanctions against Syria" argument is also bogus, because attempts to impose sanctions have been repeatedly blocked by those dealing arms to Syria. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Putin stated that he doesn't support Assad. What Russia is doing is mentaining the good relations they have with Syira. International sanctions do not exsits, why is so? That's not the point. --Wüstenfuchs 21:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

this is reuters 10 hours ago reporting on Russia staying put in Syria and abandoning some plans they might have had to evacuate -"The report did not specify whether the plans for a possible evacuation included the withdrawal of a small number of "military specialists" Russia has said were in Syria to assist the government under bilateral arms contracts." so thats your 'just normal good relations'. but when a reuters report had a German ship giving intelligence to Britain and the US that is sufficient to get Germany in the infobox? why isnt that just normal good relations betwen allies. send weapons and supprt assad consitently and over time its business as usual, not worthy of mention, nothing to do with supporting ASsad, but if theres a REuters report saying 'Bild said a german ship sent intelligence to Britain and the US then thats a different matter isnt itSayerslle (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, you forgot an important thing, the FSA doesn't have a state so they can't have bilateral relations... And they are giving their services for free... --Wüstenfuchs 21:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

you forgot - the real world - this is from the independent today [27] - " We know we are not going to get any help from West; we are alone, we don't need their empty words." - thats the reality - you are taking the michael . - saw your language here on another artcle too -"launched by the Syrian Armed Forces in order to clean the Rif Dimashq Governorate from the Free Syrian Army " - you think that is impartial encylopedic language? gawd help usSayerslle (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Rebels lie, since governments of certain states had already admited that they are aiding them so... --Wüstenfuchs 09:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Fulfilling existing arms contracts is not the same as supporting the government in this uprising. For instance, the USA has been selling arms to Bahrain for years and continues to do so; yet the US isn't listed as a belligerent in Bahraini uprising (2011–present). There's no reliable source for your claim that Russia has sent troops to aid Assad – a rather improbable claim, too, as the Syrian army is large enough for Assad not to require foreign troops to help him. As for the warships: there's a Russian navy base at Tartous, of course Russian warships will be docking there. That's not supporting Assad. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If that is true, then why did Russia announce it would stop selling arms to Syria sixteen months into the conflict? [28] Clearly Russia was knowingly supplying the regime prior to July 2012. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If you'd truly read my previous comment, you'd know the answer to that question. Hint: it's in the first four words of my previous comment. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

They sent weapons to one side in a civil war. They did more to support the regime than any Western country has done to support the rebels. And they still have noncombat troops deployed in Syria. Remove Germany, Canada, the United States, etc., and I won't argue Russia belongs -- but if those countries are in, Russia must be added as well. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

See, the Western countries are smart. They send loads of weapons to the Gulf and Turkey, who then send it to the insurgents. I guess their hands are clean in this. LOL. Or well, I guess their M 16 rifles[29] just dropped from the sky. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as the weapon depicted is an M16A1, it may very well have come from Lebanon. (Possibly supplied to the Lebanese Government by the US as aid, or a captured Israeli weapon from one of their many adventures in Lebanon, etc). Claiming that an M16 is definitive evidence is US aid is comparable to saying every extremist/militant group carrying Russian weapons like Kalashnikovs or RPG-7s are backed by Russia.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Once again, the USA is not providing any of these weapons yet. M16's are standard in Turkey. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_equipment_and_uniform_of_the_Turkish_Army Sopher99 (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

So where does Turkey get their M16s from? Bingo. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

But they had M16's for many, many years... Its easy o give spares and what not. The USA didn't sell Turkey 50 or 100k m16s 5 years ago for the FSA. M16's are not the only contribution here. Other regular Turkish weapons to. What I am trying to say is that the USA has not made any decision ot arm them yet. After Obama's possible reelection they may. Sopher99 (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Uh, Turkey is part of NATO. It's been a U.S. ally since the 1950s. No conspiracy there. Also -- what is your point? Russia has been shipping arms directly to the regime, and there are persistent reports that it has also provided military advice and intelligence to the regime. We either remove the Western countries because they don't meet the definition of belligerent, or we apply the same standard to both sides and add Russia. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Half the damn world uses M16s. AK-47 is a Russian licence/design that is found all over the place in everyone's hands as well. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No one seems to get the point; the West does not have to send weapons directly to the rebels, as they already get western produced weapons through the Gulf and Turkey. FunkMonk (talk) 11:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The same way Assad's forces get Russian-produced weapons from Russia, even though the Syrian treasury is depleted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Syria gets its weapons directly, so no, not the same. The insurgents get their weapons indirectly from the West. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You're right, the Russian hand in the conflict is indeed much more "direct" than the Western hand. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

This is Press TV today - "British Foreign Secretary William Hague has revealed that his government authorized and facilitated “limited contacts” between the UK agents and representatives of the so-called Free Syrian Army. The contacts were part of a conspiracy hatched by Britain’s spying apparatus and the U.S. spying agencies to topple the popular government of President Bashar al-Assad." [30]This is the version of reality that the epigones of press tv want to foist on wp imo. Sayerslle (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It is quite obvious to all parties that Assad wouldn't still be in office without Russia. Political support can be most commonly identified thru Russia's actions at the UNSC. Russia is supplying arms to Assad - as mentioned before they are merely just following trade agreements. However, Russia trading with Syria is in breach of International norms by supplying weapons (helicopter gunships people!!, I mean come on!!) to Assad. Numerous articles cite Russia as assisting with advice and intelligence. Russia is therefore supporting Syria by political, military and intelligence means. Russia is not a belligerent, but they are are a supporting party to the fullest extent. Stop being ignorant of this fact and add it to the info box. In the Korean war there was less evidence of USSR support of North Korea than Russia support of Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.212.228 (talk) 10:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Objectivity

I'm missing a link to the official website of Syria, i.e. the governmental website. I visited this website some months ago, it's URL being http://www.sana.sy. I had downloaded the new constitution from there in english language. Now, it seems that access to it is blocked. 85.126.213.181 (talk) 00:49, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have no issues accessing the Sana.sy site that is linked in the article. Perhaps it is an issue with your specific location? Jeancey (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I have problems with accessing Sana.sy for several months now. I can only access it through typing the IP address. Can´t say why, maybe something to do with EU sanctions? EllsworthSK (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ya, I have also have had trouble accessing their site for the last several months, and I don't live in the EU. I think its because some Internet providers are actively blocking access to the site. I saw talk in a forum a while back that you can access SANA if you type in at the beginning of the internet adress 208.43.232.81 than the adress you want to link to. However, this works only 2-3 times a day and than you have to wait for 24 hours. EkoGraf (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Spillover conflict addition for Jordan

I believe we should add Jordan to the list of belligerents as "Spillover conflict" since frequent news of border clashes between the Jordanian and Syrian armies. It happened in July, last month and it happened even today. [31] [32] TKhaldi (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I think this is worth considering. I have read several things about skirmishes at the Jordan-Syria border. It should, however, be in a separate "spillover" (or whatever) subheading thingy in the infobox though.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 04:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If you take a look at Libyan civil war, you'd see that Tunisia is included in "spillover conflict" in a separate subsection. TKhaldi (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

In that "spillover conflict" you had casualties on at least one side, if not both, there were multiple major incidents of conflict between the Libyans and the Tunisians, and the Libyans even violated Tunisian territory in pursuit of opposition forces. On the Jordanian border you had only two instances of Syrian and Jordanian soldiers engaging in a gun fight (during a 18-month conflict) which didn't last even half an hour and didn't have any casualties among both militaries. Both times the clashes started after Syrian border guards were firing after fleeing rebels, defectors or refugees, not firing at the Jordanians directly. Also, at no point did the Syrians ever cross the border into Jordan itself. It would be giving too much weight to a non-notable incident and only per that it would be a violation of two Wikipedia rules. If more and major incidents occur in the future than it would be worth considering. EkoGraf (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Picture

I am writing this here because I know it is more likely that something will be done about this if it is written here. The map in the "Battles of Damascus and Aleppo" section seems to call the recently captured border crossing "Tal Abyad." I am pretty sure that the crossing itself is not called Tal Abyad, but that it is located within the Tal Abyad District. If I am right than my suggestion would be to rename it as something like "Tal Abyad border crossing," or maybe "unnamed border crossing in Tal Abyad District." Other ideas? --Philpill691 (talk) 19:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:21, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Christians taking up arms against FSA

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9539244/Syria-Christians-take-up-arms-for-first-time.html What can they do? Their brethren are being massacred by Salafists in Iraq and Egypt daily. Will they have to fight NATO too one day? FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Funkmonk, there's no need to include your POV in your comments. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

.... Lijan militias .... Sopher99 (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

K. You gonna do something productive with that, like find an article to put it in, or are you just planning on waving it around here? This isn't a general discussion forum, so go preach somewhere else. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Or, just perhaps, it was posted to bring attention to it so we can determine how it can be sued? FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Not with that emotional little sermon you weren't. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's pour one out for the supporters of a regime that uses warplanes and helicopters to bombard its own people. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It is highly ironic that the regime cheerleaders trying to whip people up into a panic attack over "sectarianism" are the most sectarian minded of all. Like User:Lothar von Richthofen says, go preach somewhere else, this is not the place. بروليتاريا (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I found another source that backs up the Telegraph (http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/Christians+Aleppo+form+armed+militia/7235782/story.html). They are both conservative leaning newspapers, but they definently qualify as reliable sources (if actually updating the article was your intent for posting). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I like that you say they're both conservative "BUT" as if obviously everyone knows being conservatives is a black mark against you and makes you less reliable, BUT you might still be acceptable if you're proven to be above board. Talk about systemic bias that someone could say something like that so unconsciously. "Bob's conservative BUT he's actually an OK guy!" --86.141.63.176 (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

No one is denying the presence of recently-armed Christian militias. The only problem is that this kind of militias falls in the category Lijan militias, rather than falling in its own category. Essentially this is nothing new (looking at it in the context of how long lijan militias have been operating). Moester101 (talk) 06:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Articles about bomb attacks

There were several mayor bomb attacks in Syria with dozens of deaths (in last few months, last one in Aleppo) but they are not represent in List of bombings during the Syrian civil war or with specific articles like bombings in Iraq.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 10:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Shell hits Turkish home

Shell fired from Syria reportedly hits home in Turkey, killing 4 - Fox News It is not mentioned whether the government or rebels were responsible, but Fox also just reported (on TV) a Turkish strike into Syria in retaliation.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Also on BBC News: Syria conflict: Shell kills five in Turkey--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Turkey responds by shelling Syrian Army positions, ask for an urgent NATO meeting. [33] 93.232.149.4 (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Infobox - combatants

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

Since there is a non-stopping edit-warring in the infobox section, i suggest to make a poll whether to include in the infobox a section on countries which provide non-lethal/humanitarian aid (US, UK, Germany, France and Canada). Please vote support or oppose on inclusion of those countries as combatants.Greyshark09 (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I added a request for comments in order to get more oppinions. --Wüstenfuchs 12:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - According to guidelines of infobox, we should list only major combatants, usually up to four main ones from each side. In addition, combatants must be those parties / countries, which actively participate in the warfare with troops on the ground or support the war by extensive logistic / advisory support on the ground (agents, shipments, training officers).Greyshark09 (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Those countries are supporting the FSA and are actively involved in the conflict and their participation has a certain impact on number of events. --Wüstenfuchs 11:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Per Wusten and per Wikipedia's definition of a beligerent, which is the word used in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Those countries are actively engaged with the opposition and without their aid, they may be crushed by the regime. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - @EkoGraf, this is a blatant disinformation to claim that i'm the only one to revert those highly dubious additions in infobox over the last days (as you said "you are the only one arguing about this at this point" - which is of course far from truth). This is highly inpolite my friend and POV-sh. I guess you forgot users Seyerslle [34], Kudzu1 [35], Meowy [36], I7laseral [37], StoneProphet [38].Greyshark09 (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this is from voice of america 16 August and is I believe a not UNDUE appraisal of the situation " John Pike, head of Globalsecurity.com, an Internet research firm, says facing a well-equipped Syrian army are insurgents essentially armed with assault rifles, machine guns and rocket-propelled anti-tank rockets.

“What they do not have is helicopters,” said Pike. “What they do not have is tanks. And that’s basically what the Syrian government is relying on to suppress this insurrection: this military imbalance that the rebels have light weapons and the government has heavy weapons.” Analysts say much of the weaponry used by the insurgents has either been captured from military depots, taken from soldiers of the Syrian army who have defected, or purchased on the black market. Reports also indicate that countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia are either providing funds to the rebels to purchase weapons or are directly supplying them with arms." The infobox is a pov caricature of on the ground realities imo, and is illustrated by what i believe are deluded remarks of alabamaboy. i believe an average listener to the news would believe 'the west' was utterly vacillating and hesitant over Syria and that would be correct imo - unike Russia. P.s - i agree with greyshark that it was a blatant lie to say he was the only one reverting- another eg. of a kind of a blind wilfulness to see the world only one way?? Sayerslle (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Calling someone a blatant lier is a breach of Wikipedia's rule on civility. Also, I was not the only one who said that Greyshark was the only one arguing. Futuretrillionaire also said that he was the only left complaining. How come you are not attacking him? EkoGraf (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trying to justify Sayerslle's behaviour, but you EcoGraf are trying to bend wikipedia rules, which is against WP:CIVIL, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:5P. There has never been a "month-long" infobox. There were many people to revert this dubious addition, which could barely exist for a day or two in a raw before being deleted time after time.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I did never insult anyone, unlike others, and, at least in my point of view, its you who are violating WP:IDONTLIKEIT. However, at this point, I don't really care, I stated my opinion, what happens happens, we will see the will and opinions of other editors. As far as I go, I'm done. EkoGraf (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose -- If they're not fighting, they're not belligerents. I also dislike this double standard wherein it took months for pro-Assad editors to allow Iran to be present as a combatant in the infobox despite consistent reports, later confirmed by Revolutionary Guard officers themselves in Iranian media, of Iranian troops fighting in Syria, yet one report comes out suggesting Canada might be providing some basic intelligence reports to the opposition and they're falling all over themselves to add it. I just added Russia because I found sources dating back almost two months that it sent noncombat troops, as well as weapons, to Syria -- as reported in Russian media as well as Western and Arab media! I think some editors here have really bought into the Syrian state media agenda and it's affecting their ability to contribute to this page in a meaningful way. That's unfortunate. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• I oppose the current standing as well, but I think you might carry the same symptoms you accuse others of. You keep on bringing the point that reports confirm Iranian officers on ground are taking part in the conflict. I would like to see the sources that support this, including the one in which Revolutionary Guard officers confirm their role. Same for Hezbolla if available. If the western countries or others are kept, I think a good compromise which I support would be to hide them using Template:Collapsible list (as done in this infobox) to avoid giving them undo weight (which I assume, is the main reason for opposes). Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, here you go: [39] [40] Surprised you hadn't heard about this already. I also support the idea of using the collapsible list, if these countries remain in the infobox. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Conditional Support (see below) They are not belligerents, but as has been pointed out before, there are other war articles (I believe the Angolan Civil War article in particular was cited) that show "supported by" and a list of supporting powers. The countries should be added in such a "supported by" section. Likewise, in my opinion, and as per the above comment, Russia should be added as a supporter of the Assad regime. The key is that it has to be applied equally and without bias to both sides in the infobox.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Article on Angolan civil war has been recently disrupted. Prior to that, the consensus was to keep supporting powers who actually had troops on the grounds, whether advisory (Soviet) or logistic (others).Greyshark09 (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it's been a long time since I have looked at that article. I'll have to check some of the more recent revisions on that page then.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose" After looking over some revisions from the past year on the Angolan article, there seems to be a lack of consensus and stability regarding "supporting states", as it seems to change arbitrarily. Due to the fact that the same would likely happen here in the future, I'm changing my vote to "oppose". Only list countries/groups with forces on-the-ground fighting (currently, Syrian Govt, rebels, Islamist militants, Kurdish groups, the IRGC [as I currently understand it], possibly Hezbollah...) If Turkey, the US/NATO, or the other Arab states send in forces, or the Russians get drawn into the fighting over the naval base at Tartus, then we should add the respective state as a belligerent.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - "If they're not fighting, they're not belligerents". ~Asarlaí 19:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia's definition of beligerent A belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat. So, combat is only one form of being a belligerent, not the only one. EkoGraf (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not agenst listing the states in the infobox, I'm agenst listing them as if they'r "combatants" (i.e. removing "Supported by"). I think the infobox should be kept as it is now. ~Asarlaí 20:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, what do you propose? How do we list them in the infobox, but not under combatants?

We keep the infobox as it is. We list the combatants (Syrian Army, Free Syrian Army, asf) and underneath that "Supported by:". That distinguishes between thoze actually fighting and thoze merely giving support. We can't lump them all together. ~Asarlaí 21:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You should than change your vote from oppose to support, because this is a vote called upon by an editor who wants to remove the countries alltogether, even if the "Supported by:" note is there. EkoGraf (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Greyshark's OP wasn't clear, but he said he wanted to include those countries "as combatants", so I assumed he wanted to remove the "Supported by". ~Asarlaí 17:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

He wants to remove the countries alltogether. EkoGraf (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose The only way I would support the addition of these coubntries is if it were laid out as it is in the Korean War article, its okay to place countries that provide medical support as it is a more neutral term but when you go into Non-lethal military aid and intelligence it crosses the POV line. I dont care what Wikipedia's definition of a beligerent is, wikipedia is not a reliable source used here as each conflict is diffrent, what it comes down to is what the sources say. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It actually matters what Wikipedia's definition of beligerent is because we are editing by their rules. EkoGraf (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Then if we only add the countries which provide medical support, then we could only add Canada, the only country currently providing medical supplies according to its reference source. Isn't it right then? Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 21:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yes I would support that as medical aid is seen as a neutral thing when it comes to wars. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support providing intelligence and military aid, even if its nonlethal, is definitely acting in a hostile manner, so it meets the definition of belligerent.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Support It is a key information, especially as the rebels are very little without the foreign backing. It shows that the Syrian civil war is used as a tool by the traditional ennemies of the country. --DanielUmel (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You support because it supports your personal POV. Great stuff. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose It is is negligible information as the rebels receive veyr minimal support from them, and most war articles do not use this format, particularly for simple Intel and humanitarian aid like this. I7laseral (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the current layout. Would, however, support something akin to what is used at Korean War. Collapsing countries with indirect or minor support does two things: A) gives due weight in accordance with contribution and B) keeps the box from looking too confused and cluttered. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose for the arguments made by users above. Sopher99 (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The section in which those countries are included is called belligerents. The definition of a belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner. Sending over CIA operatives¹ or having a ship off the Syrian coast supplying the rebels with intelligence² clearly qualifies as acting in a hostile manner. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

"Korean war" article solution

• Support -Several people have brought this up. This is an interesting solution as collapsing the minor supporting countries solves the "dubious" countries in the infobox problem. Also they're technically in the infobox, so it's understood that they are belligerents. I think we should have several categories for collapsing, mainly "non-lethal aid" and "intelligence support", or something like that.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 23:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support --Wüstenfuchs 09:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support EkoGraf (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support so long as each country is cited, and it applies to both sides equally. Seems like a good way to include verifiable material without necessarily being undue attention. In addition, in keeping some of the countries essentially hidden, I think it will also discourage random editors from tampering with it on a large scale in the future, so this placates another concern I had before.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support ~Asarlaí 17:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Conditional oppose - it does sound a reasonable solution and much more suitable with WP:WEIGHT and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, but it must be decided what is the criteria for inclusion. We cannot put all kinds of supports into the box altogether. While military and intelligence support on the ground can indeed count (like Turkey and maybe Qatar and Saudia if indeed sent arms and advisors), humanitarian or political support is too vague and UNDUE to be put there. Greyshark09 (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

What? It has already been agreed that sending nonlethal military equipment and intelligence counts as acting in a hostile manner, which is part of the definition of "belligerent". Just look at this discussion section and the one above titled "Redundant countries in infobox". Your opposition towards including any trace of Western support (from reliable sources) in the infobox is getting ridiculous. But I suppose it doesn't really matter, considering there is a strong consensus to include the minor supporting nations under collapsed format-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - this would bring with it endless discussions about what countries should be regarded as "minor supporting countries" (and thus in the collapsible section) and which as major. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

As if there haven't already been "endless discussions" about the the infobox as it was.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The major ones are those who are bringing in arms and money for arms (Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey) and the minor oners are those providing non-lethal military aid. EkoGraf (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support, seems like a good compromise but sources must be strong for including a country into the infobox. Another point, that Greyshark mentioned, whether "political support" without any material support should be included into the infobox is questionable and should be discussed further. JCAla (talk) 09:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Summary of opinions

Last updated by: Futuretrillionaire (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support for inclusion of countries, but not in collapsible list format (3): TaalVerbeteraar, Alabamaboy1992(?), DanielUmel(?)

• Support for inclusion of countries in collapsible list format (9): Futuretrillionaire, Wüstenfuchs, EkoGraf, L1A1 FAL, Asarlaí, Lothar von Richthofen, Knowledgekid87, Mohamed CJ, Kudzu1

• Oppose inclusion of countries in infobox (4): Greyshark09, Sayerslle, I7laseral, Sopher99

Comment- It looks like we have two extremist sides who will undoubtedly continue the edit war, with the majority supporting a middle-ground. Come on people, let's have some peace and end this already.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous - the discussion on the 'Korean War option' started only yesterday morning (not counting the user who proposed it). The default duration for RfC's is 30 days. You're way premature drawing conclusions already. The idea is giving everyone time to comment on your proposal, rather than simply waiting for the support !votes to outnumber the oppose !votes and declaring victory as soon as that happens. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I would not consider myself extremist, because the general idea of including supporting parties of lesser importance in a collpasing box indeed can resolve a significant part of this arguement. I however think that for example a field of "non-lethal military support" is nonsense and self-contradicting. How "non-lethal" and "military" can integrate in the same sentence?! I think that there should be inclusion of countries/sides with a clear definition as following:

Combatabts/belligerents - those openly engaging in conflict (Syrian gov-t, rebel groups, Kurdish opposition and mujahedeen groups).

Supporting sides - providing a significant support on the ground with either limited troops, logistics or training (Hizbullah, Iran, Turkey), but not waging an open war.

Collapsable box - providing a significant support in equipment, funding and intelligence, but not sending actual troops to the region (Saudia, Qatar, maybe Russia, we can discuss others as well).

The rest - humanitarian, declarational, unproven or limited financial support or any kind of poorly sourced info should not be put in the infobox.

This is my positition on the issue, hope other editors will support this both reasonable and compromised suggestion.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to note my position is that non-belligerents should not be listed, but if they are, they should be in collapsible list format and Russia must be included on the side of the Syrian government. Otherwise the infobox is POV. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed puzzling - how come Qatar and Saudia are mentioned (not speaking of such dubious additions as Germany, France and Canada), while Russian supplies of weapons are omitted. Qatar and Saudia may be inside a collapsable box, but Russia should be present as well on the other side.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The references to Basiji make no sense at all. Basiji is more like a undercover police force and the article that is referenced (#5) doesn't even mention Basiji in it? Do a search Ctrl F and you won't find it. There is also no other media source indicating Basiji were deployed. This would be extremely irregular if deployed as its like sending police to go fight a ware, which Iran to my knowledge has not done since the war with Iraq. I think the they are confusing Basiji with IRGC which is there in small numbers.

I put Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iraqi Kurdistan in a collapsible list like the rest, but Futuretrillionaire reverted me because "There is no agreement in the talk page to do that". I thought the vote above was for putting all states who hav' given military help into a collapsible list? Surely the collapsible list should be for states who arn't actually fighting. Agree or disagree? ~Asarlaí 15:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Summary

Consensus supports the use of the "'Korean war' article solution" to present the information. MBisanz ^talk 22:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.