Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Requested Split

The Syrian civil war has grown far too long. Under the "military incidents with neighboring countries", there is a main page for situations like this listed. To me, I believe this should be enough if we are dealing with an article of this length; and this part of the article moved. What are people's thoughts on carrying the parts that aren't on the Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war? UncappingCone64 (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

• Any unnecessary detail should be moved to spin off articles. FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

There is too much information under the Syrian civil war in general to have information that goes this in- depth on the main page. The page I'm referring to would be a very relevant place to put it, and already has some of the information. UncappingCone64 (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless anyone has any objections, I will move the mentioned parts to it's own article. UncappingCone64 (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Which sections in particular are you thinking about moving? Sopher99 (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The "military incidents with neighboring countries". Description in the first post. UncappcingCone64 (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment - the section "incidents with neighbouring countries" should indeed be cut down, but it already exists within the article Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war; however i see you have correctly merged it there, so it is fine in my point of view. Good job.Greyshark09 (talk) 10:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it did exist in a more primitive form there. I updated the sections that were out of date. Thank you! UncappingCone64 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Moderate insurgents returning to the regime fold

May be a sign of what is to come: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10198632/Syria-disillusioned-rebels-drift-back-to-take-Assad-amnesty.html FunkMonk (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sad but seems inevitable in retrospect. I would suggest maybe we should hold off on really highlighting this at all in the article until we get some corroboration. Right now, it's a compelling (and believable) anecdote, but the reporter admits a lot of his information couldn't be independently verified. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM

There were similar reports months ago. Seems the FSA is disintegrating completely, with moderates going back to the regime and Islamists going to Nusra and friends. FunkMonk (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC) 190 out 100,000+ defectors is nothing, especially since another 100,000 who defected didn't join the rebels and went home. As of this month we still have members of the Syrian army intentionally defecting to Al nusra of all people. http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/16288 So the story is not significant nor even verifiable (The Syrian government has pulled this type of crap for media before [1]) Remember that "up to 1/4" of Free Syrian army members were defecting to Al nusra? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/08/free-syrian-army-rebels-defect-islamist-group Sopher99 (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC) Lol, yes, keep parading the self-reported numbers around. They are right up there with the beheading of Zeinab al-Hosni, Gay Girl in Damascus, Bashar living on a Russian ship, "peafecul" protesters, the regime bombing itself, and all the other lies spread by the opposition. More reliable sources give them no more than 40.000. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC) No - more reliable sources give them 80,000, fighters and the most detailed report putting together each battalion with over 100 people puts them at approximately 200,000 members. besides, the "numbers" are only one of several things I was talking about. And don't call out 4 lies and believe that this discredits rebels (protesters were peaceful, regime solders and pilots will occasionally bomb others soldiers if they want an opening to defect) when I can point out dozens of lies from western countries, hundreds from russia, and thousands from the Syrian government. Sopher99 (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC) So you're asking me to list more opposition lies? Unlike some others here, I don't have all day for this crap, so I'll have to disappoint you on that one. Just gave you the cream of the crop. Anyhow, too early for us to deduce anything form these news. But if everything continues like now, the West soon won't have any "moderates" left to arm. FunkMonk (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Army Ambush

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/07/2013723182219298817.html

Scores killed in an ambush in Damascus Al-Jazeera reports — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.200.215 (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Its already mentioned in the the Rif damascus offensive page. Individual incidents and fighting reports go on the battle pages for their respective battle page. Sopher99 (talk) 11:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

4th column plz

Hi there,

I recommend a fourth column.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/12/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE96B08A20130712

Cheers and thanks for everyone's work on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, BBC puts the FSA strength at 40,000

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23283079 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

IF u continue like this u will need a 5th for Ghuraba al-Sham Front

I still support 2 columns one for the government and and second for rebels with line separating different alliances 3bdulelah (talk) 21:31, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. If fighting between insurgents spreads, we will need to either add more columns (not sure if that's possible), or put all the insurgents in the same column as done in the Iraq War article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hardly, see Yugoslav Wars. Changing alliances and infighting does not mean new columns need to be created. And this is different from the PYD situation, since they were never aligned with the Sunni Arab rebels. FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

First, hail to the common sense. Second, why are we having Ghuraba al-Sham in infobox? They are not that strong to be included and they don´t even exist in the first place (there were never 2 Ghurabas, only one). EllsworthSK (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

You can remove it if you want. I don't want use my revert.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

By the way, here's a relevant deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghuraba al-Sham Front. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is too early to tell what these clashes will lead to. So far, they have worked more together than against unlike the Kurds, who were always separate. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

See also: "Leaders of the Western- and Arab-backed FSA told Al Jazeera that they did not consider the ISIL an enemy, but that they would defend themselves."[2]

• • Also, soon the FSA may not even exist anymore, it seems al-Qaeda is the way of the future for this revolution, and FSA will be assimilated. FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Just wait. The US will start launching drone strikes against these terrorists.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• As of today, they are still officially allied. Tthe FSA will continue to swallow their pride, because they have no choice. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

All rebels in same column with separation lines and notes saying who is in conflict with whom. Enough said. EkoGraf (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Israel

the infobox says

<!-- DO NOT ADD ISRAEL. PER [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive215#User:DIREKTOR reported by User:FutureTrillionaire (Result: See below)]], ANYONE WHO ADDS ISRAEL WILL IMMEDIATELY BE BLOCKED. !-->

Why so harsh? For example, RT just reported that Israeli strike on Syria was carried out from Turkish base [3]. I don't really know how true this is, but I think we do need to discuss whether Israel supports the rebels or not. There have been several incidents in Syria involving Israel and it certainly is a player there. --Երևանցի ^talk 17:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

So is Turkey and so is Lebanon; so?Greyshark09 (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Turkey is in the infobox. Lebanon is not a player in this conflict, at least officially. Some groups in Lebanon support Assad, others support the rebels. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Not whether Israel "supports the rebels", but whether they have participated in the conflict. Striking anti-ship missiles outside Latakia has literally no strategic value for the rebels. Anti-ship missiles are only a problem if you have ships, which the rebels don't, and Latakia isn't exactly an easy or high-priority target for the rebels. As I've said before, Israel is not "supporting" any side, but is participating with limited interventions to serve its own interests; these latest strikes reinforce my position. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, then why don't we add Israel to the opposition column, under the Mujahideen, because it acts against the Syrian government and, as you said, in no support to the rebels/Mujahideen. My point is that Israel, the government of the State of Israel, takes active military role in the conflict, we don't know if they support anyone, but they certainly do act against the Syrian government at this point. I mean, how do you attack a sovereign country and avoid from being called a belligerent. --Երևանցի ^talk 01:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

What sources would you suggest? TippyGoomba (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Here

• Jan 30 Israeli Airstrike in Syria Targets Arms Convoy, U.S. Says New York Times
• Jan 31 Syria 'confirms' Israeli air strike but disputes target BBC
• Apr 2 Israel Says Its Tanks Responded to Shots Fired From Syrian Side
• May 4 Israel Targeted Iranian Missiles in Syria Attack New York Times
• May 4 Sources: U.S. believes Israel has conducted an airstrike into Syria CNN
• May 4 Israel bombs Hezbollah-bound missiles in Syria: official Reuters
• July 15 RT source: Israeli strike on Syria was carried out from Turkish base Russia Today

Let me know if more is necessary. --Երևանցի ^talk 04:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

None of those refer to Israel as a belligerent. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Which one of the three sources say Iran is a belligerent? --Երևանցի ^talk 05:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. The fact that Israel attacked Syrian sovereign territory automatically makes it a belligerent. Or do we have different understandings of the term belligerent? --Երևանցի ^talk 05:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Please don't change the topic, we're talking about Israel's inclusion, not Iran. If you want to discuss Iran's inclusion, create a new topic and explain why the sources don't support inclusion. Please review WP:OR, if no sources call Israel a belligerent (or something analogous), we don't either. This is a very low bar, if the media is reporting that Israel has joined the war, it should be easy to satisfy. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I guarantee that you will know when I change the topic. I gave a very specific example/question, which you left unanswered. What you want the New York Times or BBC publish an article saying "Israel is a belligerent in the Syrian civil war"? None of the Iran sources do that.

1. Israel attacked the Syrian soil. (fact)
2. Belligerent: a nation or person engaged in war or conflict (fact)

What exactly is your argument here? --Երևանցի ^talk 06:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't made any argument. I've stated that I'm unconvinced by your argument. I also gave rather generous criteria for my mind to be changed. Your two facts are a textbook example of WP:OR. We don't deal in facts, we deal in sources. I didn't answer your Iran question because it's off-topic. I haven't reviewed the sources because no one has suggested removing them, I have no idea if Iran should be there. If you think Iran should be removed, start a discussion about it. TippyGoomba (talk) 07:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

@Yerevanci: This issue has been discussed many times before: Talk:Syrian civil war/Israel. Read the archives to find out why Israel can't be added into the infobox. Per WP:Stick, Let's not waste any more time arguing about this.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't wish to read discussions from months ago. Also, why is Wikipedia so pro-Israeli? What you mean "Israel can't be added into the infobox". Don't you think "can't" is a very strong word? Israel attacked the Syrian territory and it's not a belligerenet? Then what is it? What is Israel's status in this conflict? Do I need to revise my knowledge of English? --Երևանցի ^talk 19:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No consensus was ever established either way in any previous thread, so discussion is still valid. Reading archives is still good to see what points have already been raised. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

if israel is in the infobox the whole conflict will be exposed as a fraud..arab league will be looked upon as a tool for the west. Baboon43 (talk) 20:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because the whole world is waiting with baited breath to see what Wikipedia editors will do to the infobox next—I heard Ban Ki-Moon even has a special team monitoring the article 24/7, letting him know whenever so much as a comma is added. Get over yourself. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not our job to defend the Arab League. If some people feel like it's a tool for the West, let them. That's not a legitimate reason for exclusion of Israel from the infobox. Again, if it's not a belligerent, then please state what is its status is in this conflict. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

i support the inclusion. Baboon43 (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I support including the state of Israel in the combatants section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.188.161 (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You should spend your energy trying to find sources to support your case. See WP:NOTFORUM, this is not the place for a general discussion about "what is its status is in this conflict". TippyGoomba (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

you should perhaps care about yourself? Ever thought about that, dear friend? If it's not a forum, then close the case, I have nothing else to add. I won't be surprised if after invading Damascus you guys would be saying that Israel is defending its own interest. Keep it up and good luck! --Երևանցի ^talk 03:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, seems classic anti-gentile jewish censorship.in this case of wiki media. See C.A.M.E.R.A campaign on wiki. In short it should be added as consensus 77.53.219.2 (talk) 04:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Both the pro-Zionists and pro-rebels here are against adding it, so it won't be implemented in a million years, whatever happens on the ground.. FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

First Rebel Census

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2013/07/20137188552345899.html

Appears to be FSA + SILF, and maybe Syrian Islamic Front.

260,000 members in all. Sopher99 (talk) 16:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hitler claimed 1,000,000 German troops crossing into Alsace.

Castro declared he had thousands in the Sierra Maestra when in reality he had dozens.

Need more information.

WP:CRYSTALBALL  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.188.161 (talk) 18:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC) 

its not a claim, its a census report of each individual brigade. Furthermore its members - not all of them fighters.

Crystalball talks about not making or setting up predictions - so i don't see how that applies here. Sopher99 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I was merely suggesting we use this for the strength section, and as a tool for addressing the infoboxes of individual Syria related articles. Sopher99 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• These guys are known to have pulled such numbers out of their asses on numerous occasions. But whatever, if it's all we have to go by. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

If it is all we have to go by - then why use it at all? 2.96.113.60 (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Their source is the supreme military council. I would not consider this very reliable. There are estimates from what i would consider much more reliable sources like BBC which puts the FSAs strenght at 40.000 [4]--Liquidinsurgency (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

This article by al jazeera is nothing more than qatari propaganda to sway public opinion and make the rebels seem bigger than they are. 86.26.230.122 (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Put simply, had the rebels the support some claim, they would have won by now. As it is, there is little evidence of the mass-protest that have happened in other Middle-Eastern countries. Is it not clear that there are attempts to make support for rebels appear far bigger than it really is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.15.100 (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• What is the most used number? FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Ethno-religious composition of Syria[76]

The percentages of ethno-religious groups is not accurate. Saying that Armenians compose 4% of Syria is simply stupid. Syria is a country of over 20 million, while Armenians are (or were before the conflict) according to the highest estimates up to 120,000, which is 0.5% not 8 times higher!!! Here are some sources that estimate the number of Syrian Armenians:

• 35,000-40,000
• 60,000
• 65,000-70,000
• 70,000
• 120,000

---

We might need to find a better source. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It's strongly preferred to have a single source for all the numbers, since different sources may use different counting mechanisms. In this case the source is a publication by Institute for the Study of War. I would suggest this is generally not a reliable source but it isn't being used to support anything too important. Any objections if we just drop the diagram with no prejudice to it's accuracy? TippyGoomba (talk) 02:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The diagram highlights the sectarian tensions of the conflict, which is important.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I did not say we should remove it, but find a better source. The overestimation of Armenians gives me a reason to doubt that the percentages of other groups are factual. I also support the idea of one source, because if we try to create our own diagram based on 5-10 sources, that would be OR. --Երևանցի ^talk 18:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You are right. What number is most often used? FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Suitable for ITN?

The BBC is reporting that "Syrian government forces have taken most of the Khalidiya neighbourhood [according to activists and media]" [5]. Is this a significant update for ITN? if not, are there any other important updates about the situation in Syria that we should be nominating? Mohamed CJ (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Its not any more or less important than the BCC's report that rebels captured Khan Assal this week [6] or the rebels capture of most of Nawa (a city of 60,000+) [7] this week. If the ITN covered this war's territory changes, 90% of its news would be Syria. Then you have the UN's update yesterday of 100,000+ mark [8]. To put it simply there are many many territory changes and its all very fluid, so instead if you want to nominate something from Syria, do the 100,000+ death toll news - as the death toll is not fluid, it can only go one way. Sopher99 (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. That can work, however the article Casualties of the Syrian civil war needs a longer update, as one line is usually considered too short. Mohamed CJ (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Mujahideen as separate belligerent?

With the Mujahideen and FSA now being reported to be fighting each other, is it worth considering spiting the two into separate belligerents for the purposes of areas under control and the infobox? Since the Kurds are noted as a separate force due to their different goals from the main opposition, it seams logical that a major split amongst the opposition should result in them being noted as two separate forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.19.166 (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Kurds are sided with the regular SAA, Mujahideens are the backbone of the so-called "opposition", while FSA were never a big player on the field of battle (though they had plenty of media support). FSA is falling apart and lots of their fighters are defecting back to the Government side..Ratipok (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hezobllah, not kurds, are sided with the Syrian army. FSA is not falling apart -only 100 have defected thus far. Just yesterday 92 Syrian army soldiers defected to the FSA in Deir Ezzor alone [9], so the fsa gain more men in a week then they lose to defections in a year. Sopher99 (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot about Hezbollah. They are sided with the regular Syrian army too.. Nice Youtube propaganda video btw. 100 soldiers defected, dropped all of their military equipment somewhere, just so they could dress up like some Afgan/Checen/Iraqi/Turkmeni/Saudi.. peasents and fight the regular army of the Syrian people. Ratipok (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Kurds are very much their own side in this war, if you bothered to keep up with the news about them, you'd clearly see that. You want to know who else thinks they're allied with Assad? Pro-jihadi types who want to justify the current Qaida aggression. Oops! Looks like you've swallowed some takfiri propaganda! Better get some syrup of ipecac quick! Otherwise your beard will start to grow out, you'll start hallucinating voices chanting the shahada, and you'll be seized with a strange desire to strap explosives to yourself and walk into a public area! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Please don't start redundant threads.[10] And no, the FSA is still allied with those guys, they have said so, and they have no choice. As for the FSA disintegrating, seems inevitable, in spite of Sopher's wishful thinking. FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

As inevitable as the the USA's. [11] Sopher99 (talk) 01:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

In the long run, yes. This here FSA will just get a much quicker demise. Probably will be irrelevant before next year. FunkMonk (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Lebanese arena casualties

It seems to me that casualties of the Syrian conflict spillover in Lebanon are not generally included in Syrian civil war fatalities' statistics. The numbers in Lebanon are so far in hundreds, so it is not a crucial issue, but a general question is whether all sources count Lebanon separately?Greyshark09 (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Those killed in Lebanon are usually not Syrian either, so it is really a separate conflict, the numbers shouldn't be mixed up. FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree with FunkMonk, even though the Lebanese events are directly related to the Syrian civil war and are a consequence of the Syrian war, the Lebanese conflict is a separate one. EkoGraf (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Syrian rebels open new frontline in Latakia..

Rebel forces launched major offensive on the government stronghold of Latakia.It must be added to the infobox.[12] [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.226.229.177 (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

We usually don't update the article unless there has been a territorial gain. Let's wait and see.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• There has been fighting there before. Nothing new, just one of al-Jazeera's/Qatar's increasingly desperate propaganda attempts. As said, unless something actually happens, nothing to write home about. In any case, the insurgents are better off focusing on areas they can actually win, this is just suicide. FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time Alawite villages were captured in the "Alawite heartland". Not to mention they are now 10miles from Assad's hometown. Sopher99 (talk) 14:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No, some of these villages have gone back and forth in the past. This still a marginally significant offensive—worth at least mentioning in a sentence, but one which almost certainly won't go far for the rebels given the balance of forces in that region. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It has an article now: 2013 Latakia offensive. Interesting how every minor clash and battle in this conflict gets an article, I'd guess only something like WW2 rivals this one. FunkMonk (talk) 13:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

UN says 100,000+

I see, the infobox says '92,000+ - 100,000' about UN estimate, when UN has declared 2 days ago, that least amount would be 100,000+ deaths. Change it. [14] 122.179.136.233 (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Just fixed it. Sopher99 (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Consequences

Closed per WP:NOTFORUM, no change to the article is suggested

In light of the Assad regime's response to the peaceful uprising in Syria with coercion and brute force, it's clear that Assad didn't learn a crucial lesson from the crackdown on the Prague Spring and the Tiananmen Square massacre: using brute force when dealing with a popular uprising invites condemnation from the US and its allies in Europe and Canada and will only make people's lives harder. The bloodshed in Syria should also send a message to the leaders of Belarus, Cuba, Zimbabwe, and Vietnam that they will face consequences from the US if they dare use coercion and brute force when dealing with popular uprisings. Do you agree with my reasoning? 68.4.28.33 (talk) 04:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian The problem with your theory is that elements among the protesters were armed from the very beginning (even before the uprising), killing policemen and similar, and that did not happen in Prague or China. Furthermore, an Islamic uprising was anticipated in Syria for years, the "Arab spring" was just a pretext. If protesters in the West were armed, you can be pretty sure police would crack down on them too. And your last point is dead wrong, see what's happening in Egypt at the moment; violent crackdown on protesters with the West's blessing. FunkMonk (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Numbers

Mates, take a look at this source http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Apr-24/214833-brahimi-tells-security-council-syria-situation-hopeless.ashx#axzz2bUFQukq3

According to the U.N.-Arab League envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, there is some 30,000 to 40,000 foreign fighters in Syria right now!! Shouldn't that be on the article?? 187.126.255.174 (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

“Four months ago, a reliable source close to the regime estimated the number of foreign fighters at a few hundred men and the Nusra Front at 3,000-5,000. Another source now speaks of no less than 30,000-40,000 foreign fighters,” Brahimi said.

Personally, I'd like to see his sources. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

We already have many Daily Star articles on this page. It would be hypocritical and revisionism to not include this one. I believe that there should be some mention of this development in the contact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, but I'd like to see his sources first. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so, where is this guy's source? 189.81.240.164 (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Crimes against Syrians

WP:NOTFORUM

The commander of the battalion "Jabhat al-Nusra" in Qusair took Mariam, married and raped her. Then he repudiated her. The next day the young woman was forced to marry another Islamic militant. He also raped her and then repudiated her. The same trend was repeated for 15 days, and Mariam was raped by 15 different men. This psychologically destabilized her and made her insane. Mariam, became mentally unstable and was eventually killed. "These atrocities are not told by any International Commission" say to Fides two Greek-Catholic priests, Fr. Issam and Fr. Elias who have just returned to town. The two are collecting the cry's and complaints of many families. "Who will do something to protect civilians, the most vulnerable?" they ask. As reported to Fides, the two have just celebrated a Mass to consecrate again the Catholic church of St. Elias in Qusair. http://www.fides.org/en/news/33906-ASIA_SYRIA_Rape_and_atrocities_on_a_young_Christian_in_Qusair#.UdnUim3m8rP Human_rights_violations_during_the_Syrian_civil_war#Armed_opposition_fighters. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Wish you luck, but cannot hold out much hope. For despite strong and growing evidence of FSA/rebel crimes, Wikipedia point blank refuse to change their one-sided statements. They continue to say that the vast majority “of human rights violations documented in Syria, including numerous International crimes, have been committed by the Syrian military...” They continue to say that some “violations are considered by many to be so serious, deliberate, and systematic as to constitute crimes against humanity and war crimes.” And they continue to use the Human Right Watch term, "archipelago of torture centers". Despite this unwillingness to change outdated statements, do such remarks have a place within Wikipedia? 78.145.4.100 (talk) 09:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia is not one- sided on this. In response to Mr. Richthofen, I've added a section under Jabhat al Nusra on their crimes against Syria, including your article. This article is so long and there are so many developments in Syria on a daily basis that it is hard to keep everything up to date. (UncappingCone64 talk 16:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Rebel Crimes Against Syrians If Wikipedia is balanced and fair, they should give greater consideration to growing evidence of rebel crimes against humanity. Instead they refuse to update their statement/claim that the vast majority of crimes have been committed by the Syrian military. And they continue to use the loaded term: "archipelago of torture centers". Why is Wikipedia refusing to update this section? 78.147.84.242 (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC) P.S: Is it not interesting how "UncappingCone64" page uses both the rebel and US flags? 78.147.84.242 (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC) P.S Two: Having used this site for some time - without any indication WP needed paying - now they want money. Nothing to do with having asked a few questions? 78.147.84.242 (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC) "Nothing to do with having asked a few questions?"—hahahahahahahahaha it's a fucking fundraiser, everyone sees that message. Believe it or not, it costs money to run a website. Wow! Mind-blowing! "Wikipedia" isn't in charge of changing things, volunteer editors are. Back away from the puddle, Narcissus, and maybe go outside and get some fresh air while you're at it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC) I agree that there should be another section on the crimes committed by the Syrian rebels, and I will start working on that. You either don't have a Wikipedia account, or you are choosing not to use it; but whatever the case is, know this: Wikipedia's articles are written by people around the world. I try to clean up bias on articles I see, but in an on- going crisis like this one, it's very difficult. Any bias reflected in Wikipedia articles are not opinions of the organization, rather of the author. Wikipedia is not refusing to update the articles, the writers have not updated them. As for you PS: my writings are never biased towards one side or another. I have taken down the flag of the Free Syrian Army from my page, but again this isn't relevant. The American flag on my page is not an endorsement of any set political ideologies. UncappingCone64 (talk) 21:32, 17 July, 2013 (UTC) Don't create a crimes committed by the Syrian rebels section because we don't have a crimes committed by the Syrian army section. Sopher99 (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Well the Article has crimes committed by the SAA throughout, but to remain neutral I'll create a section on both. I'll post a new topic on narrowing down the article. A lot is fairly redundant. UncappingCone64 (talk) 23:54, 17 July, 2013 (UTC) Human rights violations are only mentioned in the lede and the Human rights violations section. Your only making an assumption that the Syrian army's crimes are mentioned throughout the article. In reality, they are only mentioned in 3 or 4 paragraphs. We spend much more on this article talking about Islamists and sectarianism then we do the Syrian army in general. Sopher99 (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC) I'm not making an assumption, the SAA's crimes are mentioned in several places. The article talks a lot about Islamists, that's true. But it does very little explaining their crimes. It is beneficial to the neutrality of the article to have a section about crimes committed by both sides. UncappingCone64 (talk) 00:15, 18 July, 2013 (UTC) Can you give me a few examples of where else they are mentioned? Sopher99 (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, 2.2, 2.7, 2.8. What is your opposition to a section on the crimes of both sides? UncappingCone64 (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC) In 2.2, Syrian army and police fired on protesters. Which they did. At this time there were no rebel organizations. In 2.7 I see no talk about crimes on either side In 2.8 the closest thing to crimes are islamist car bombs, goverment scud missiles, and heart eating incident. I really don't see an imbalance here. Sopher99 (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, they fired on protesters. That's a crime that happened since the uprising began. Even if the coverage isn't disproportionate (which it is), I still don't understand why you're opposing a section dedicated to the crimes on both sides. UncappingCone64 (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Because we have a section for crimes on both sides. The section titled Human rights violations. Sopher99 (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC) There were armed protesters and attacks on police since the very beginning, the "peaceful uprising" is a myth. FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Only a few buildings in Daraa burned down, which was nothing. That doesn't call for thousands dead, snipers and arrest of hundreds of thousands. The Egyptians burnt down and killed dozens of cops, buildings, police stations, and still its a peaceful revolution. Sopher99 (talk) 01:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC) A thousand Egyptian protesters were killed in a single month, that didn't happen in the beginning of the Syrian protests. Yet the Syrian protesters armed themselves immediately, and that's when the war began. The Egyptians never did that, and that's why their "revolution" was peaceful, and didn't lead to war. You cna be pretty damn sure they wouldhad been crushed by the army if they started militias that early. FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Are you nuts? Egypt there were tens of millions of protesters - and in Syria there is hardly tens of millions of people. In Egypt the protest size throughout the country was bigger than the entire population of Syria. Of course there would be more protester deaths in Egypt. The opposition didn't do any arming until July. Furthermore the death toll in Syria reached 1000 in 2 months. [15] So at that time there were 50% less deaths per month but 1/4 the population and 1/10 - 1/8 the protesters. Sopher99 (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Lol, "nuts"? For stating the obvious? Sorry for that, dude. I'm tired of your home made math. FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC) Also, what's happening in Egypt now is identical, of not worse, than what happened in Syria in 2011. Is the Egyptian army also sectarian and Alawite dominated? Lol. FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Its not identical or worse than what happened in Syria 2011, in Syria the protests were small yet protesters were being killed in numbers higher than egypt. Furthermore I never once said the problem in Syria is Alawite domination. In fact Sunnis have the majority historical responsibility for massacres, most notably Saddam Hussein who is estimated to have killed 400,000 shias in the 1990s. What I do put blame on Alawites in Syria for is the Assad's family "mafia-isation" of the Alawite sect - turning a once discriminated and still economically poor sect to a mob controlled society where status quo is the norm, and saying anything out of demanded opinion can get your own father to kill you. Sopher99 (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC) So let me get this straight, why are you not investing as much time and effort into POV warring for the Muslim Brotherhood protesters in Egypt? It seems as arbitrary a cause for a random American as this. FunkMonk (talk) 07:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC) We don't need to debate ins and outs the Syrian Civil war. I'm going to create a section for war crimes committed by both sides,with sub- sections briefly mentioning the crimes both sides are accused of. UncappingCone64 (talk 11:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Like the human rights violations section we already have? We already have it Sopher99 (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC) The Human Rights section? That only talks about the Assad government before the uprising; it doesn't even mention the FSA or other opposition groups.UncappingCone64 (talk 13:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC) 8.3 ..... Sopher99 (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Oh, all the more so then. 8.3 is mostly about the SAA, with only a small section about the Syrian opposition. Why are you opposing two sections? UncappingCone64 (talk 14:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Why shouldn't it talk more about the syrian army than the opposition. The vast majority of abuses are done by the Syrian army http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/snapshot-syria-un-must-take-urgent-action-ensure-justice-victims-gross-abuses-2013-03-14 . To be neutral the vast majority of crimes put on the article has to be about the Syrian army, and in my opinion, its no where near vast on this article yet. Sopher99 (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2013 (UTC) I daresay the majority of crimes are committed by the SAA, and human rights organizations confirm that. But the format is awkward. It jumps back and forth, and it would just be better to have one section on the SAA and one section on the FSA & other opposition groups. UncappingCone64 (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC) I'm taking out the Human Rights violation sub- section and creating a new section for the HR violations; with a sub section for both the opposition and the Syrian Arab Army. Most of it is from the original section, although I have added a few reports to both. I feel that all bias will have been taken care of. UncappingCone64 (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Seems fair, balanced and should highlight the growing evidence that many human rights abuses have been carried out by armed opposition groups. Next, does the term "archipelago of torture centers" have any place on this site and how much evidence is there that they even exist? 2.96.113.60 (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Yes, it does. The Human Rights Watch page that is cited is titled "Torture Archipelago" UncappingCone64 (talk) 12:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC) While it is biased not to have some coverage of the Syrian opposition crimes, let it not be forgotten that the majority of crimes have been committed by the government. UncappingCone64 (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2013 (UTC) How many other outlets have used the term "Torture Archipelago"? And, if it was ever true that Syrian Government forces carried out the most crimes, does not recent information indicate that the rebels are little better? 2.96.124.58 (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Or, keep the section on government forces crimes as it is, but update/improve the relatively weak section on the opposition crimes? For this section is already undermined by the statement: “The criticism itself of the act [Cannibalism] came under criticism from the Daily Telegraph, who pointed out the ludicrousness of the news media making the incident a bigger story than the Syrian government's routine slaughter of children”. Should not this pro-FSA comment be moved to the government forces section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.235.55 (talk) 10:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC) The Human Rights Watch article uses the term "torture archipelago", and it is cited. There is no reason to take it down. As I previously said, you can update the rebel section anytime you like with any crime cited appropriately by a reliable source; there is no discernible bias here. As for the second comment, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Are you criticizing the source (the Telegraph)? The Telegraph is a reliable news source. Although I am confused as to how an opposition soldier eating another's heart would belong under the Government crimes. UncappingCone64 (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC) "Torture archipelago" is ridiculous propaganda and not language fit for an encyclopaedia. FunkMonk (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC) That is the official terminology used in a Human Rights Watch report. HRW, by the way, is not propaganda. UncappingCone64 (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC) HRW is biased. It is very tender towards Israel, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Sorry if I did not make my point very clear. I am not questioning the act of cannibalism, but what appears to be FSA-supporting opinion of the Telegraph. For, by playing up reports of routine Syrian government slaughter of children (a well used pro-war tactic), the Telegraph seem to be down-playing reports of FSA crimes. Given this, should not any such (pro-FSA) comments be removed from the FSA crimes section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.216.211 (talk) 20:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC) The Telegraph may lean pro- FSA on some things, although that article that is cited here is quite clear in reporting the crime committed by the opposition soldier. Unless the article started to defend the act, I don't see a point in switching it. If you feel strongly about this particular article, just leave a better link below and I'll swap it out (as long as it's a reputable source). UncappingCone64 (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC) ”..Amnesty International is investigating these reports which, if true, are deeply disturbing. The organization condemns without reservation serious abuses by armed groups, including attacks that target civilians, indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks, torture and other ill-treatment, hostage-taking, and the killing of captives...” Index: MDE 24/016/2012 Amnesty International March 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.15.100 (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC) "routine Syrian government slaughter of children" Uh, where? FunkMonk (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Richard Spencer, Daily Telegraph, May 15th, 2013. "Cannibalism in Syria: why is this a bigger story than the routine slaughter of children?" For some reason, this pro-FSA headline was included as part of the Violations Committed by the Opposition section - but has since been removed. 2.96.115.41 (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 2.96.115.41 (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC) FunkMonk: The routine slaughter of children, while biased, was true. Look here. UncappingCone64 (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Syria: weapons depot explosions leave many dead in Homs Since up to 40 people are reported dead, and dozens left critically injured, should not this outrage be added to section on Opposition Crimes? That said, what should anyone carrying out such attacks be called? 92.16.156.16 (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC) It was a rebel mortar shell that landed on a Syrian army weapons depot. The Syrian army uses mortar shells on civilians all the time. Just imagine if we added each time the Syrian army shelled civilians onto the crimes committed by government forces section. Sopher99 (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Yes, it should. Can you provide a link? I do not believe that you have a Wikipedia account (or if you do you are not using it), so let me just say this: There are countless reports that come out on a daily basis on human rights violations committed by both sides. Wikipedia is developed by volunteers who have varying level of actual lives and duties to attend to, making an implementation of all these reports impossible. If you feel that an article should be mentioned that is not, you can request that it is added and wait for an autoconfirmed user to read your comment and act upon it. Or, you could create your own account and add it yourself. UncappingCone64 (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Shelling a weapons depot in a war is not a warcrime. Sopher99 (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC) True- therefore, all of that is completely irrelevant. My bad. UncappingCone64 (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC) So the willful shelling a weapons depot within a city - where it is likely to lead to scores dead and many more critically injured - is not a warcrime or Act-of-Terror? 88.107.55.89 (talk) 09:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Act of terror? do you even know that that means? it means killing or destroying someone or something to spread fear. The Syrian army are terrorists quite literally. This is where the arms depot was by the way. http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=34.690322&lon=36.728722&z=17&m=b&search=Homs Sopher99 (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC) No, anonymous user. It is not a war crime, nor is it an act of terror. UncappingCone64 (talk) 12:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC) According to Wikipedia Terrorism is: “...the indiscriminate use of violence against noncombatants for the purpose of gaining publicity for a group, cause, or individual.” Sending a wave of rockets into the the city of Homs, triggering a succession of massive explosions in a weapons depot that killed at least 40 people and wounded dozens more, certainly gained publicity for the rebels. 88.107.51.97 ([[User talk:88.107.51.97|talk]) 16:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC) The 40 people left dead were not confirmed to be civilians, nor noncombatants. It does not fit the description. UncappingCone64 (talk) 21:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC) While the facts need to be confirmed, most press & TV reports indicate that many noncombatants were killed or wounded. That said, the facts are that waves-after-wave of un-targeted rockets were willfully fired into a city. Given the likely outcome of this act, might not this be seen has as act of terror? 78.147.92.0 (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Look- until you can find me a link that says that there were non- combatants killed, nothing about this is going up under opposition crimes. Firing rockets into a weapons depot is not a crime. UncappingCone64 (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2013 (UTC) Firing rockets into a weapons depot is not a crime - as long as the depot is not close to a built up area. Then again, while a very high level of evidence is required to indicate rebel crimes, why does it sometimes appear that (almost) any unconfirmed YouTube clip is enough the prove government crimes? 78.147.86.36 (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC) This is not an area for general discussion of the Syrian civil war. Bringing up standards that other editors/ media sources use is not relevant. You were attempting to get an article about an attack that is not a war crime classified as such. I apply these standards to all reports that I put on Wikipedia pages. You have repeatedly failed to provide the asked for article that shows civilians/ non- combatants died in the attack, so I am deeming this issue as resolved. If you discover more evidence to support your argument, you can by all means create your own Wikipedia account and place the article under Syrian opposition war crimes. UncappingCone64 (talk) 13:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC) So this cannot be considered a Syrian Opposition War Crime, since - despite rebels using rockets in a city area - evidence of civilians having died is lacking? OK, but does not this indicate the high level evidence required to prove any rebel crimes? 84.13.10.105 (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC) This will be my last message on this debate unless new evidence comes up because I do believe you have not understood me: The shelling of a weapons depot, regardless of location, is not a war crime. As for your second issue: as I said in my last message, these are my standards for imputing an article. There are hundreds of editors (perhaps even thousands) that edit this page, some edits with poor citations are bound to go un- noticed. That is not Wikipedia's official opinion, nor is it the standards that Wikipedia and its authors put forth. If you care to fix errors on this page, you can create your own Wikipedia account. UncappingCone64 (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Put it this way, despite the real danger that the shelling of a city area is likely to inflict needless suffering, do you not consider that there is anything wrong with such actions? Then again, are there not some on this site wishing to maintain the fiction that the Allahu Akbarrr armed-gangs are some kind of brave freedom fighters doing battle with the a mad/evil Syrian government? Ends. 2.96.114.163 (talk) 11:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Background article?

I just noticed there's a Background of the Bahraini uprising (2011–present) article. Perhaps there should be one for this conflict, since there isn't really room for more of that here, and it is quite superficial as is. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM

On the other hand, I sense a growing disinterest in this article (and its subtopics) among many of the resident editors, so maybe it's too much at the moment. I guess the conflict is not attractive for idealists any more. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Au contraire, this topic area remains as saturated with partisan editors as ever. The real killer is the editing environment. Our de facto attitude of "if I counter your raging POV with my raging POV, that will balance out to NPOV" here just results in animosity between the parties, gridlock on disputes, and shitty articles. New contributors either run to the hills making the sign of the cross or grab a gun and hop in a trench. Those who are of a more "realist" persuasion become bruised and embittered from getting constantly caught in the crossfire. Conflict-related topic areas on the project all too often become a mirror of the conflicts themselves. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC) I'm talking about the regular users, not random IPs and other drive by editors. I think what's happening in Egypt now has put things into perspective for people like Sopher. The hypocrisy is thick. FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Whats happening in Egypt now is muslim supporters being massacred in the dozens for protesting the liberal's decision to support a military coup against a democratically elected government. My point is only enhanced - we have come full circle now in Egypt. Sopher99 (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Yet I don't see you edit-warring on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood on the Political violence in Egypt (July 2013–present)‎ article day and night for some reason. But that is, of course, off topic. FunkMonk (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC) I was out for the week and could only occasionally use the wiki on my mobile phone. Now today I am back for good. The page one edits doesn't speak for the person. I am one of the very few Americans who support not only the Palestinian ambition but also Hamas, but I very rarely edit those articles. Sopher99 (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC) I guess arbitrarily picked causes are better than no causes. FunkMonk (talk) 01:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The background section is not that long. However, the Military support section is and needs to be trimmed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

The point is exactly that it is not long enough to cover it properly. But the problem is, that we don't have the space here to add a lot of background. The solution would be a separate article. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Main articles are for main points. What we have here may not be long enough to cover the topic in detail, but that's not what a main article is for. I agree, a background article is needed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like to fork off large parts of the Uprising and civil war section. I agree that the article is still infested with disruptive editors but that's no reason we can't make basic structural changes. Someone can suggest an extremely conservative fork, if anyone passionately disagrees, we can put it to a RFC. Then we can repeat the process moving over more content. It's a tedious process but it gets the job done. It sounds like we have enough agreement in principle to get things started. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed (again). The background section we have now is way too simplistic. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Mujahideen

In the "Belligerents" section, I believe that the mujahideen should be listed as a separate faction from the Syrian Opposition like the Kurds. The mujahideen are now becoming at odds with the main opposition group. The opposition want to create a secular new government, while the mujahideen, believing a secular government would be heretical and sinful, want to create a new Islamic caliphate in the country. Also, both groups have started clashing lately in combat skirmishes. The mujahideen openly admitted in assassinating top opposition leaders. As a result, the opposition is promising revenge on the attacks and won't let them go unpunished. Also, the opposition oppose Al-Qaeda, while the mujahideen openly embrace them and even seek aid as well. The mujahideen is now willingly fighting the government without help from the opposition. Also, more and more defectors from the opposition have joined the mujahideen, believing the opposition to be ineffective and not god's will and even willing now to fight them as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.118.177.22 (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The rebels of the Syrian Opposition and the mujahideens share a common goal: to overthrow Bashar al-Assad. The kurds have other agendas (the independence of syrian kurdistan, for instance). And they have a separated leadership that do not answer to the SNC. Coltsfan (talk) 12:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The SNC and the mujahideen only common goal is the fall of al-Assad but they too have different goals, like the Kurds, on what Syria should look like after the war. Namely, those like Nusra and ISIS have declared they want to create an Islamic caliphate, while the SNC talks about a secular state. And their differences are starting to show, yesterday ISIS attacked and routed FSA forces from the provincial capital of Raqqah. Plus, Nusra and ISIS also do not acknowledge or answer to the SNC. EkoGraf (talk) 14:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The events in Raqqa were a local power struggle, nothing more. Meanwhile, FSA groups are collaborating closely with jihadists across the country: capture of Menagh, Lattakia offensive, war on Kurds, etc. I'd say that it's doubtful how many "FSA" groups ultimately answer to the SNC. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk)

The fall of al-Assad is enough reason not to separate them. The whole point of this uprising is to topple Assad. Coltsfan (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

• No. Yet again, they still cooperate in every single battle, and state that they are allied. Until something else happens, they stayin the same column. We've discussed this before. The Salafist groups are just slowly absorbing the FSA, that's all. FunkMonk (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Stalemate

Quick question: the section "Stalemate, FSA and YPG conflict with ISIS (June 2013–present)", where is the Stalemate? With the exception of Aleppo, we see victory after victory of the syrian military. So, again, where is the stalemate? Does any source says that the war is currently at a stalemate? Or we just assumed that? Coltsfan (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Take a better look at the section. Can you show me a single government victory outside of the Homs province? No you can't, because outside of the Homs province its all rebel victories or stalemate. Sopher99 (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It can be interpreted as minor victories, actually. While the government is winning the big battles. I'll ask again: Is there any source that says that the war is currently at a stalemate? Or people agree with Sopher99? Coltsfan (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

How is the government winning the big battles when it is losing alawite villages, airports, and towns of 50,000+ ? Sopher99 (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Lol, as I imagined, it was merely Sopher's own wishful thinking. Know what? We don't call anything a "stalemate" unless reliable sources do. We don't need your personal interpretation in the articles. Remove it, or find a source. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23395145
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec13/syria2_08-01.html
http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/syria-will-remain-in-stalemate

Sopher99 (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

US General Martin Dempsey (July 18, 2013): "Any observer knows that Bashar Assad is prevailing on the battlefield". Coltsfan (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

http://www.mintpressnews.com/syrian-stalemate-despite-rebel-victories-assads-not-going-anywhere/166554/
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/world-news/rebels-claiming-victories-in-syria.21716712

Sopher99 (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• It does not seem to be either neutral language or a situation that will prevail for long, so might as well just remove it now. FunkMonk (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

It is neutral, how is stalemate not neutral? Also WP:Crystal Ball Sopher99 (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless I changed it. Sopher99 (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The tittle of the section is too big! Coltsfan (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed it. Sopher99 (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections now. Coltsfan (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

"Stalemate" is quite accurate. However, the purported "FSA-ISIS conflict" has failed to materialise as such. A few beheadings followed by a few brief scuffles, nothing more. It is impossible to equate that with the multifront war between Kurdish groups and Salafi-led rebels that has been raging for weeks now. Moreover, given the fact that ISIS seems to be increasingly taking a prominent role in the latest fighting against the government, it seems that the "FSA" is cozying up to them. Here we see Aleppo FSA commander 'Aqaydi looking proud as punch next to an ISIS emir as they stroll around the freshly-captured Menagh airbase. ISIS and "FSA" fighters cooperated extensively to take the base [16], and the "martyrdom operation" that finally blew down the last loyalist defences was carried out by a Saudi ISIS/JMA member [17]. Whatever offensive that Kamal Hamami was supposedly planning when he was murdered seems to have been taken up by his killers in Lattakia. ISIS is playing a greater role for sure, but to call that as "conflict with the FSA" is incorrect. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually alot of that last part is due to the mistake of calling Al nusra ISIS, and ISIS Al nusra. When ISIS "announced" that they were taking control of Al nusra, many Al nusra members went along with it and declared themselves ISIS, and did not change their cooperative behavior. Subsequently there is in de facto two ISIS, Iraqis (alqaeda) and Syrians (x-nusra), though you could have guessed that because its pretty much in their name. The Syrians are going to team up with the FSA, the Iraqis are going to prosecute and spend time suppressing people, as is the norm for much of Sunni-Iraqi community. Sopher99 (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hm. Fascinating. Doesn't change the fact that ISIS (ISIS-ISIS not "Nusra-ISIS" or w/e) and the FSA collaborated extensively during the capture of Menagh. Last I checked, Abu Omar al-Shishani's Jaish al-Muhajireen wal-Ansar subgroup of ISIS is most decidedly a foreign outfit.

Additionally, Nusra is simply the Syrian flavour of AQ, please don't pretend otherwise. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the "FSA and YPG conflict with ISIS" part from the section title, per the discussion here.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but w t f ?! Why there are no other info other than FSA&co advances, and complete silence when FSA&co started to lose? Up till the beginning of 2013, map was updated frequently - almost every day - now sometimes I have feeling, that the people who made updates are dead, or they make updates, when they can crawl out of trenches... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.59.175 (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Insignificant groups in the Infobox

Kurdish Salaheddine Battalion is a minor group that is a sub faction of a sub faction (Tawhid brigade) of a sub faction (SILF). It is sticking out like a sore thumb in the infobox, and it doesn't even have a page article. Under Mujahideen, Ghuraba al-Sham is a very minor Jihadist group and does not compare with the Syrian Islamic Front, Al-Nusra or ISIS in size, influence, newsworthiness or any other criteria I can think of. Also, the leader of Ahrar al-Sham/SIF is listed twice, once as Hassan Aboud and again as Abu Abdullah al-Hamawi (his kunya or alias). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazkthul (talk • contribs) 01:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree on the point of the Kurdish battalion and was going to raise the issue myself. It is a battalion of a brigade of one rebel faction. So a sub of a sub of a faction. It should be removed because there is no reason for it to be more notable than any of the other more known rebel battalions. Otherwise we would just have to list all of them in the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The battalion is one of the most significant ones of Aleppo, with several thousand men. Its one of the few, if not only, current unities with the Kurdish ethnic group. By the same logic you guys are putting out, we would have to remove Lijan militias, a small group of a few thousand militiamen who are minorities, but show the reader the syrian regime's alliance with most of the Christian leadership. when was the last time in the newsmedia the Lijan were mentioned? Sopher99 (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

What? As far as I know the Kurdish Salaheddine battalion has no more than 30 members. They are almost totally negligible. Roboskiye (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that Lijan (and Al-Jaysh al-Sha'bi and Syrian Resistance) aren't significant enough either and should be removed. As you say, Salaheddine Battalion is one faction among others in Aleppo, which is just one city in a country wide civil war. By all means it should be included on the Battle of Aleppo page, but why is it listed on the Syrian Civil War infobox when not a single other rebel 'batallion' is listed, and even large and truly significant rebel groups like Ahrar al-Sham are excluded? Gazkthul (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Like Gazkthul said, I don't mind it being listed in the Battle of Aleppo infobox, since they are a known frontline unit fighting there. But why should they be special and included in the main civil war infobox when there are several other more known rebel battalions fighting in the war but have not been listed in the infobox. For example the Falcons of Damascus battalion? Or some other... I don't even mind leaving the Tawhid Brigade since its one of the largest Brigades of the FSA, but to give undue weight to just one of its many battalions? No way. Remove it. EkoGraf (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

"Lijan militias" is a shitty half-translation of "Popular Committees", which make the news a bit more often. Yet unclear as to whether they are the same as or distinct from the NDF, though. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The Popular Committees militias have been formalised and merged into the NDF many months ago, I will assemble some citations for the articles when I have time. Gazkthul (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, that explains that. Do you know if the Jaysh al-Sha'bi is also part of the same apparatus, just a synonym, or something separate? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

See my comments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Jaysh_al-Sha%27bi

Both the Kurdish Salaheddine Battalion and the Lijan militias should be removed. Neither are significant enough for the main article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• Question: the infobox says that the Jaysh al-Sha'bi militia has 50k strong in it's ranks, that it's supported by this source, but the source don't mention this militia, per say. Is this right or I'm missing something? Coltsfan (talk) 20:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• The source says "people's army", which is a translation of Jaysh al-Sha'bi.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• A related issue I've been thinking of: Why does every damn militia need an article? Several are even defunct now. I think we should merge the small articles that will never expand anyway into a "list of militias in the Syrian civil war" or something. FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Dubious Gas Attack Claims August 21st

The way these purported gas attacks are presented in the article suggests that they have, for a fact, happened. We don't know if these are real and I think the paragraph dedicated to this issue should reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it does particularly , it just says its been widely reported these attacks on the eastern outskirts of Damascus, and there's video of people whose limbs have gone floppy which is apparently what can happen in the event of a gas attack and the video of the bodies of children with no marks from bullets, but they are dead - Frank Gardner bbc correspondent, says, "the timing is odd, bordering on suspicious. Why would the Assad government, which has recently been retaking ground from the rebels, carry out a chemical attack while UN weapons inspectors are in the country?" but then goes on to remark "Experts say it would be almost impossible to fake so many dead and injured, including children and babies. They bear no visible wounds from gunshots; instead, many display the classic symptoms of a nerve agent attack, with startled, frozen expressions that experts say are reminiscent of Saddam Hussein's 1988 attack on the Kurds at Halabja. Last year a senior Syrian defector, Nawaf Fares, told me in Qatar that the Assad government would not hesitate to use chemical weapons if it wanted to. However, today it denies any guilt and instead says this is a media campaign by its enemies." [18]Sayerslle (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Even if it happened, only the Takfiris would benefit. I doubt rabid Salafists from Pakistan, Libya, Afghanistan and the like give a damn about the lives of fellow Sunnis in Syria, they kill other Sunnis daily in their own countries. In thos eplaces, civilian Sunnis killed in suicide attacks by other Sunnis are usually labelled "martyrs" either way, because their deaths helped weaken the actual enemy/target. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Question: Is this article serious? Really? Every event in this damn war is gonna get an article now? lol Coltsfan (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, yes. As I've mentioend before, in the end, only WW2 will rival this one in number of related articles. Every minor gathering of five scraggly bearded Levantines who ever named said group now has an article. It's ridiculous. FunkMonk (talk) 00:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If the toll of the attack (chemical or not) is anywhere near the numbers being reported, this is a better candidate for an article than many others. Hundreds of people drop dead in the same area at the same time, but it's somehow an insignificant occurrence? This is a poor target for such complaints. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Even the number is being severely questioned. Anyhow, lets see how it develops. FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes lets see what develops. The whole thing is losing momentum linked to a western intervention as conflicting data comes in. Its been signalled by Russia the Western backed rebels did it, in a crude false flag operation, since they have the most to gain from the Syrian govt being blamed: “A homemade rocket with a poisonous substance that has not been identified yet – one similar to the rocket used by terrorists on March 19 in Khan al-Assal - was fired early on August 21 [at Damascus suburbs] from a position occupied by the insurgents,” the Ministry then said in a statement. From. http://rt.com/news/iran-warns-us-red-line-961/ This view is gaining traction as evidenced by Syria Govt allowing in inspectors. http://rt.com/news/syria-green-light-chemical-inspection-967/Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM and WP:FRINGE

This is getting interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbXbafI7cCw --Emesik (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC) The death toll is been questioned. Plus the name of the article is "Ghouta chemical attack". Chemical? We are not even sure if the attack was chemical or not. Actually, we are not even sure who the perpetrators are! Some are saying that the rebels did it, but we're putting in that article that the attack was of chemical nature is an undeniable fact? This is getting ridiculous. Coltsfan (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC) So what your saying in principle is that the Dancing Plague of 1518 might have resurfaced and killed everyone? No blood no injures, just rapid movement of muscles and dilated pupils. Makes sense. Sopher99 (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Parsimony, remember that? Either the videos are simply faked, or the "rebels" did it themselves to provoke a NATO attack. Pretty simple. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC) I don't see how or when at any point in this conflict the Syrian army wanted to be conservative with the number of people they intend to kill. Sopher99 (talk) 15:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC) We're heading off to "to be hatted" territory again. But just to make one thing clear, I doubt even you think the regime is suicidal. And again, more than half of those killed are pro-regime.Your very own SOHR tells us that. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC) I believe the top 100 officials or so are more than willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of their own. Tell me by the way - did the gassing of kurds in Iraq cause international military response? Sopher99 (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Saddam was under the wing of the US when he gassed the Kurds. You can get away with practically anything as long as the West supports you. And that's exactly why the "rebels" have an interest in false flag operations, and leaked Turkish intelligence has shown they possess the means to do it. Nuff said. I'm sensing Tippy's presence. So this will be my last response. FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC) This is avery interesting video from a credible source about Syria. This is from Roland Dumas, the former foreign minister of France: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz-s2AAh06I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC) "United Nations inspectors in Damascus were denied access for a second day to the affected areas of the capital – only seven-10 miles from their hotel." that seems more pertinent to be added than random offscourings/stuff you reckon is avery interesting.Sayerslle (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC) Don't attack his typo you troll. Attack the argument. Damascus has let U.N. investigators into the alleged chemical weapon site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.20.13 (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Mislabelled Map

On the map of Syria showing the control/situation of fighting in different cities, you labelled Jordan as Israel. My sister just noticed that retarded mistake. I guess everyone makes mistakes, but labelling Jordan as Israel is rather on the special side. Sorry I have been told what I written is mean, sorry. Just please correct that mistake please. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.252.77 (talk) 21:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

that error has already been fixed in the map code. Maybe if you do not see it yet, you ought to refresh your browser so it doesn't load the site from cache. noclador (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Try turning off javascript, it does all sorts of shady things to content on the web, depending on the user. §§§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.203.159 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Syria intervention

New page? new infobox? new column? What's the plan? Sopher99 (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• Put the US and France in the infobox but remove Britian. Put the US above France.(Chipperdude15) (talk) 12:56 30 August 2013 (UTC)
• new page - as per 2011 military intervention in Libya. Article to be named either 2013 military intervention in Syria or under whatever name the operation is undertaken by the US military (i.e. as Operation Odyssey Dawn). noclador (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Nothing until something actually happens. I doubt it will be on a larger scale than the Israeli airstrikes, so don't get your hopes up. And in any case, the US will obviously be in the same column as the opposition. Like Israel would be, if it wasn't too embarrassing for them. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
• Important note - The strikes will probably going to last for like 3 days (source:[19]). They're "limited strikes". It's nothing like the Libyan no-fly zone. I think a new article called 2013 United States military strikes on Syria is more appropriate. A new article should be created, although I'm not sure what the title should be. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to add the US to the infobox. Its impact is relatively minimal. If we do include it, we should put it in a collapsible list entitled "Limited strikes".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

• See this: Analysis: Syrian regime can withstand limited strike. Analysts agree the limited strikes won't have a big impact on the war.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Note, certainly we do not create an article until the strikes are underway! How large the whole thing will be we can not know now... especially as we also do have no idea about Syrias and Irans reaction. So we can not gauge the impact yet... but it is already clear that the USA, the UK, France and likely Saudi Arabia will take part in the strikes (Saudi Arabia has a 350 Storm Shadow Cruise Missiles its planes could fire from Jordanian Airspace). So to call it the "2013 United States bombing of Syria" is factually wrong as it omits the likely to be involved other countries and articles were only cruise missiles have been deployed are listed as "Cruise missile strikes on " (e.g. Cruise missile strikes on Iraq (1996), Cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan (August 1998), Cruise missile strikes on Iraq (June 1993)). So - depending on the size and type of strike either 2013 military intervention in Syria or Cruise missile strikes on Syria (2013) seem the most appropriate titles. noclador (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The British are mobilizing war planes in their bases in Cyprus. So there might be airstrikes as well, so I guess "2013 military intervention in Syria" or "2013 limited strikes on Syria" will be the best title.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Musing about a title now is futile. Once it happens, a title will be obvious, as we'll know the exact details. "Military invention" is too general. Surely, Israel's airstrikes this year were "military interventions" too? FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

It's important to prepare now in order to avoid a chaotic edit war. Israel's airstrikes are completely unrelated to the civil war in Syria, so it's inappropriate to make that comparison.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Prevent the edit war instead. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Similar discussions (about possible events, and preparation for them) have been hatted in the past as being "forum" or whatever. As for Israel, "completely unrelated" to those who find it convenient, as implied by countless former discussions. In any case, the point of mentioning Israel was that it would not make sense to title a new article "2013 military intervention in Syria", since Israel already did that, regardless of allegiance or lack of it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Response to Chemical Weapons use in Syria, 2013Sayerslle (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Response to alleged Chemical Weapons use in Syria, 2013 perhaps? ;) --Emesik (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

well the Russian regime believes its not possible to have happened. Not by the Syrian regime. Syria is one of 5 nations not to have signed the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention though. theres still a lot that isn't known. patience. tolerance. Sayerslle (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile the 2013 Ghouta attacks page is enough, unless that event sparks something much bigger. --Emesik (talk) 21:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

napalm-like bombs are being used for sure by the regime [20] Sayerslle (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

There's already a page about that, which needs to be rewritten. --Emesik (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Its a fake story as much as I would like to see Putin and Larov completely lose their ground on international policy. Sopher99 (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

So whats the consensus? New wikipedia page and just put a note in the infobox linking to it? Sopher99 (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest to do it as with the Libyan civil war - add a summary paragraph to the main article (like: Libyan civil war#Foreign military intervention) and then create a more detailed new article (like: 2011 military intervention in Libya) with then the whole subset of articles as needed (like: Timeline of the 2011 military intervention in Libya, International reactions to the 2011 military intervention in Libya, US domestic reactions to the 2011 military intervention in Libya, Protests against the 2011 military intervention in Libya, etc.). noclador (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm okay with that.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like any intervention (if there is going to be one) won't happen for at least another 10 days.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)