Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Protester numbers in infobox

Just so we are clear, we don't put the size of the protests in the infobox.I7laseral (talk) 21:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the inclusion of the number of opponents in the infobox as well, simply because we do not actually know how many opponents there are. It's not as if a census has been held in which people could tick a box next to "I am an opponent of the regime". The actual size of the opposition is anyone's guess, really. Figures like these must've been simply plucked out of thin air. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Syria Casualty Map March To December.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Syria Casualty Map March To December.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Suicide bombings

2 weeks ago on friday, when the arab league observers first arrived, the Syrian government put on a show trying to vindicate its claims that it is fighting terrorists by showing twin suicide bombings at a security building heavily guarded by security forces. Within 15 minutes they blamed it on Al-qaeda, the fastest accusation ever. The FSA and the opposition denied they did the attack. Alqaeda and other groups never claimed responsibility for it either, even though those groups always take credit for their actions. When the regime saw that the alqaeda thing was failing to convince people, they used a fake Muslim brotherhood site that they themselves created to try to make it seem like the Muslim brotherhood did it. That failed too. While the Lebanese defense minister said alqaeda had crossed the border, the prime minister and interior minister refuted his claims.

Now today on another Friday, the Syrian government is claiming these unnamed "terrorists" did it, (learning not to accuse Alqaeda as it is an already hard to believe claim), except this time we have video of Syrian State TV workers placing objects at the scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmkak8eReY4&feature=youtu.be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYm91zdTgcs&feature=youtu.be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuMdNDTbR_k&feature=youtu.be injured man at Damascus blast site gets up, walks when shoot finished

True nothing is verified, but it all seems way to suspicious to me, and I just want to make the point of being careful with what the Syrian government says on this issue. Sopher99 (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The opposition wouldn't be stupid enough to bomb Damascus, especially in front of arab leauge observers which would push Assad's point of veiw that it is "armed terrorist gangs" that are directly responisble for killing people. The timing of the first bombs seems very, very suspicous, ESPECIALLY when it was a Syrian DAY OFF so the security buildings were mostly EMPTY, amd when some reporters said the casulaties were detained protesters. And this recent attack was in the "central district of al-Maidan, a hub for anti-government protests," and there was due to be a large anti-Government protest there that the opposition had organised. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/01/20121610858777140.html Whoever was behind this attack it seems VERY unlikely that it was perpertrated by the opposition.Goltak (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Aleppo is next http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/01/06/186757.html If the Syrian regime does foolishly attack Aleppo now even though the leak is out that they Will attack Aleppo next, this almost proves it. Sopher99 (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is the proof? Looks like the opposition want to cover their next suicide bombings by announcing a fake conspiracy before. The islamists are behind that no doubt about it, they are the only one who do suicide bombings. Damascus is a very calm city with no clashs. The regime has no interest to spice things up there.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Over 162 people have died in Damascus so far, and tens of thousands demonstrate daily, with a few million in total thus far. The Syrian government wants to show the arab league mission that "terrorists" are the problem in Syria. As for the proof...

2 weeks ago on friday, when the arab league observers first arrived, the Syrian government put on a show trying to vindicate its claims that it is fighting terrorists by showing twin suicide bombings at a security building heavily guarded by security forces. Within 15 minutes they blamed it on Al-qaeda, the fastest accusation ever. The FSA and the opposition denied they did the attack. Alqaeda and other groups never claimed responsibility for it either, even though those groups always take credit for their actions. When the regime saw that the alqaeda thing was failing to convince people, they used a fake Muslim brotherhood site that they themselves created to try to make it seem like the Muslim brotherhood did it. That failed too. While the Lebanese defense minister said alqaeda had crossed the border, the prime minister and interior minister refuted his claims.

Now today on another Friday, the Syrian government is claiming these unnamed "terrorists" did it, (learning not to accuse Alqaeda as it is an already hard to believe claim), except this time we have video of Syrian State TV workers placing objects at the scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmkak8eReY4&feature=youtu.be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYm91zdTgcs&feature=youtu.be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuMdNDTbR_k&feature=youtu.be injured man at Damascus blast site gets up, walks when shoot finished

WP:NOTAFORUM. Come on, guys. We include verifiable information based off reliable sources in this article. That's it. Personally, I think Assad is lying his tush off; but if SANA reports something relevant to this topic, it goes in the article with attribution. I also think Asaad is probably lying about being in control of the FSA and the FSA being made up entirely of defected soldiers with no elements of Islamist militancy whatsoever; but if he says something or does something relevant to this topic, it goes in the article with attribution. This isn't the place for discussing our personal feelings on this event, and I think it reflects poorly on certain editors here that their personal biases are glaringly apparent from the way they edit and the content they choose to include or exclude. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Over 162 people have died in Damascus so far, and tens of thousands demonstrate daily,". According to who? Opposition sources, the same that claimed a genocide was ongoing around christmas in Homs and when the observers came a few days after, the situation was reassuring. The same opposition that claims 800 000 protesters in a city of 500 000 (Hama) and 70 000 protesters when they are 2-3 000? Most of these information, spread by people not even in Syria, are completely unchecked but yet you act like if it is the absolute truth. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

1 - the Arab League mission head mustafa al- dabi is the only one on the entire team who said the mission head is assuring. Mustafa al dabi is one of the founders of the Janjaweed, a group of mercenaries who killed 400,000 people in Darfur. Nabil al-Arabi confirmed that the situation is not assuring and that protesters are still dying. Keep in mind that Nabil al Arabi is trying his very best to keep foreign intervention away, mentioning "no foreign intervention" every ten seconds of his life.

2 - No one ever said that there were 800,000 protesters in Hama in August. They said 500,000. Second of all Hama has 700,000 people as of 2010. Sopher99 (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

What's really interesting is that these attacks always come within a day of the sectarian attacks in Iraq. It's just Salafist insurgents acting up. But those are the friends of the West now it seems, so who cares? Blame it on the targets. FunkMonk (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Iraqi bombings occur every week, and there has only been two suicide bombings thus far in Syria. Today in Iraq was a Sunni attack on Shiite civilians, last week was a Salifi attack on the secular police force. Iraqi insurgents have nothing to do with Syria. Especially because Assad blamed it on Lebanese alqaeda. Iraqi insurgents bomb things on Fridays because it is a day of prayer. Assad bombs things on Friday because it is a day of protest. Sopher99 (talk) 04:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• While well-intentioned, I suggest that the above discussion be rolled up per wp:notaforum.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

So far I think its best we should not put any evidence about suicide bombings in Damascus. What I see is that both sides are trading blames. So, who's behind the bombing? 60.49.63.145 (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to second (third?) the comments by Epeefleche and Kudzu1 that this discussion be wrapped up. Talk pages are for discussing and resolving changes to articles, not for discussing the topic of the article itself. Robinr22 (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A, you guys are using such great amount of WP:OR that I already lost a trace of it. B, Youtube is not a WP:RS. C, WP:NOTAFORUM. Next - all you mentioned was written in loads of articles which can be very well used as sources for the main article or Damascus clashes article. Add it if you want but dont write a poem about it on talk page. As for whose behind the bombing we dont know, period. Assad blames AQ linked unnamed group, opposition blames Assad and not single one entity has already taken responsibility. Easy enough. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Stratfor questions opposition narrative

Might be the start of some critical thinking in regards to the many opposition claims: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/sharmine-narwani/stratfor-challenges-narra_b_1158710.html "most of the opposition's more serious claims have turned out to be grossly exaggerated or simply untrue, thereby revealing more about the opposition's weaknesses than the level of instability inside the Syrian regime." I can't access the article itself, but I'm sure information from it could be used. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That´s blog. And even if it would be an editorial we have dozens, if not hundreds which claim opposite. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a blog and op-ed peace by an individual reporter with an inherent bias against anything perceived as "ant-Syrian government" or "anti iranian". We have no sources or evidence backing her statement. It is a clear NPOV violation. Especially because it does to put fair pressure onto the Syrian government, who only this week agreed to allow monitors into country, but only under the threat of it being sent to the UN sec council. The Syrian government overtly prevents independent media from investigating, and only allows once-a-month government monitored visits to pro-assad rallies. It is very hard for on-lookers to the situation such as myself to deny that it is the Syrian government who are exaggerating their claims. Sopher99 (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, yes, that is a blog, but I'm not referring to the blogpost, but the article the blog post is about. This: http://www.stratfor.com/memberships/205829/analysis/20111213-missteps-syrian-oppositions-propaganda-effort .FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I happened to have read the "article that it is about", after submitting my email. The article is still a blog which only claims that the syrian opposition is exaggerating the alawite splintering off from the government. The articles only entails a story about how the Syrian opposition claims that an alawite general defected, but the blogger claims to have evidence to the contrary. The article is still a blog, and still does not attribute any sources, and only provides a source to one sentence in the hufington post article. Sopher99 (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a Stratfor analysis, I have no idea how you get "blog". You only get a fraction of the analysis by sending your mail, you have to pay for full access. The reporter on Huffington post is irrelevant to the Stratfor article. If Stratfor is pro-Iranian, you're Santa Claus. FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Its just that the stator article itself says that it is a blog, created by a blogger, and i know that stratfor itself is not partisan, just the huffington post writer. Thats beside the point. My point is that the article only gives an elaborate anecdote about how the Syria opposition is exaggerating its claim that the Alawites are not really with Assad by claiming some Alawite generals are really on their side, even though the writer of the article has evidence to the contrary.Sopher99 (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I am just saying that the stratfor article does not give enough criteria to support the claims of the writer for that Huffington post article. Of course i think both he SNC and the Syrian government exaggerate, just as the the rebels and gaddafi exaggerated stuff during the Libya conflict, just that the stratfor article does not provide adequate criteria for any claim for or against this issue. Sopher99 (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I came across news reports about the Stratfor report myself yesterday and I wholly support its inclusion in the article. Stratfor is considered an authority on strategic and tactical intelligence issues and their view on the Syrian situation is therefore notable. To avoid claims that we're using blogs to source our articles, the information included should come directly from the Stratfor report and not from the Huffington Post article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Stratfor is considered authority on strategic and tactical intelligence? Jesus, what´s next? Debka beeing prime source for military operations and intelligence? They are notable, they have some good pieces but dont make them sound like they were CIA, anyone who follows their articles for some time can find there a lot of mistakes and their pushing of point of view. Take this blog above as an example. Startfor found no evidence of any massacre which has taken place in Homs. Yet they somehow didnt mention two thing. 1, No one is legally allowed to Syria without an guide on government-sponsored tours Libya-style. 2, Several journalists got there illegaly by crossing the borders with Lebanon and for example reported this about the massacre that occured in Homs in April when army used small arms as means of crowd dispersal. So it´s not about not finding but either about not looking hard enough or not wanting to find. Also 5,000 dead is UN estimate and is considered by Syrian opposition as pretty small, they say that that many people died in Homs alone. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Erm, EllsworthSK, the bit about Stratfor being considered an "authority on strategic and tactical intelligence issues" is actually a direct copy-paste from the Stratfor article. It has reference backup, too. Furthermore, I find it amazing that you discredit Stratfor's account of events, but meanwhile you accept unquestioningly the equally unconfirmed claims made by journalists. The UN number of 5,000 dead is actually, by the UN's own admittance, based on numbers provided to them by the opposition, mainly the so-called Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. If therefore find your claim that even the opposition-provided 5,000 is lower than the actual number to be implausible. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want I can provide you with dozens of sources which states the same thing about debka. It still doesn´t change a fact that it sucks. As I wrote previously they have good pices, unlike I guess many here I follow them for a while and yeah, I have sometimes problem with sources they use. Its not the only one, I can provide you with analysis of French defece think-tank which has contract with French ministry of defence and its report about beginning of Libyan civil war and give you its part about beginning events of Zawiya which turned out to be mostly bunch of bollocks copied and pasted from Gaddafi administration sources and statements and were easily denied by witnesses and documents after fall of Zawiya in August. However yes, Im likely to trust more first-hand account of journalist from major media outlet than report based on second-hand sources which came from dictatorial government and did not include opposition narrative of events. Though I think that point of the report was mostly opposition trying to speak for Alawite sect and sources which later turned out to be bogus, that one have rock-solid sources. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll include the analysis by this important think-tank under reactions, if anyone has a problem with it, take it to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard I doubt you'll succeed though, Stratfor is used as a reliable source in many other articles. FunkMonk (talk) 13:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is not closed. We still did not reach a consensus. Furthermore the article is inaccessible to normal viewers. Sopher99 (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

1: If you want it removed, prove it is an unreliable source, through the noticeboard I linked to. 2: That is irrelevant, medical journals with pay-walls are used on Wikipedia too. FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A little more sobering analysis: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA05Ak03.html FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Pro-government/Anti-government groups as sources

I hav begun a discussion here about using pro-government and anti-government organizations as sources on Wikipedia. Please share your thoughts. ~Asarlaí 22:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Re-organizing the articles about the uprising

I hav counted over 20 articles about events during this uprizing. One set of articles deal with specific incidents (like the 2011 Damascus bombings). The other set deals with events that hav happened in a certain city/province over a long timespan. I think the articles in this second set need to be renamed. A lot of them hav names such as "Siege of Homs" and "Siege of Idlib province", which arn't very accurate and seem to lack sources. We shouldn't be uzing such names unless they'v been widely uzed in the media. Furthermore, how can a whole province be under siege? To me, a more sensible name for theze articles would be "Homs during the Syrian uprising" or "Idlib in the Syrian uprising".

I think the articles should be organized like this:

One set of articles about specific incidents that hav a definit start time and end time. This inholds the following:

• Siege of Daraa
• Siege of Baniyas
• Siege of Talkalakh
• Siege of Rastan and Talbiseh
• Siege of Jisr al-Shughur
• October 2011 Jabal al-Zawiya clashes
• Battle of Rastan
• Homs airbase ambush
• Syrian-Turkish border clash
• Turkish pilgrim bus attack
• 2011 Damascus bombings
• al-Midan bombing
• Battle of Zabadani

One set of articles dealing with all major events in each city. This inholds the following:

• Rif Dimashq blockades (if this can't be greatly expanded then it should be merged into other articles)
• Siege of Homs (should be renamed “Homs during the Syrian uprising” or something similar)
• Aleppo clashes (should be renamed “Aleppo during the Syrian uprising” or something similar)
• Siege of Hama (should be renamed “Hama during the Syrian uprising” or something similar)
• Siege of Idlib province (if this can't be greatly expanded then it should be merged into other articles)
• 2011–2012 Idlib clashes (should be renamed “Idlib during the Syrian uprising” or something similar)
• Siege of Deir ez-Zor (should be renamed “Deir ez-Zor during the Syrian uprising” or something similar)
• Siege of Latakia (should be renamed “Latakia during the Syrian uprising” or something similar)
• Damascus clashes (should be renamed “Damascus during the Syrian uprising” or something similar)
• 2011-2012 Daraa Province Clashes (should be renamed “Daraa during the Syrian uprising” or something similar)

Thoughts? ~Asarlaí 01:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting on the specifics, I think your effort is laudatory. Sorely needed. This article is also now too large, and needs to be trimmed yet again.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

But how to split? The timeline is split by season which I think is arbitrary. I mean, what is the point the list is trying to make? To prove the obvious fact that the event lasted a few seasons? It is not like US history where the president inauguration is the natural boundary. We need to rely on articles that are devoted to the whole event to help us find out how they group details and filter out triva events. --Skyfiler (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

They are split into three months each because wikipedia pages are not allowed to exceed 200,000 bytes of info. If the entire timeline was one page, it would be 400,000-600,000 bytes of info. Its done for convenience, if a page becomes too big, it slows down the editing, hurt's wikipedia servers, and makes it tough for readers to navigate.I7laseral (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep on topic everyone. You should start a new discussion if you wish to talk about the length of the article. ~Asarlaí 11:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is not the name, since "Siege of <placename>" or "<placename> protests" is widel used in the press. In my view, the wide scope articles are encompassing several events, so split was a good solution for few of them already (i helped to split some, like the Battle of Zabadani, split from Rif Dimashq blockades), but not on the others (like Siege of Homs). Aside from splitting, there is much confusion between sieges of cities and clashes and protests within provinces of the same name. Example is the city of Idlib and the wider Governorate of Idlib - all in the same article.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

How about a map?

The uprising has already produced some advances of the opposition in the Idlib and Rif Dimashq provinces, taking over some villages and towns, as well as 1 city. The battle for Douma is ongoing. I think instead of protests image in the infobox we need a more descriptive conflict map, as it was in the Libyan civil war. I must emphasize that it doesn't mean the article must be renamed to civil war or anything.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose The map would be so innacurate as to be utterly useless and a waste of time. There is zero reliable information coming out of the country, and the army crushing a few hundred rebels in damascus or homs does not constitute a fight for either city. This is simply a seek and destroy scenario, the syrian army are the ones crushing dissent, there is no organized army that is fighting back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.41.94 (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose I actually would rather wait to it becomes a recognized civil war. The situation on the ground is too ambiguous for a map, especially because countless areas that we don't know about are in FSA and/or protester hands. Additionally Assad does not hold territory, rather the Syrian army just moves to any area it feels defectors are gathering too much force. Sopher99 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The FSA only does hit an run attacks, meaning territory is constantly changing street by street. Sopher99 (talk) 02:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Not really possible. Access to Syria is completely limited, we know that some villages in Idlib, Deir el-Zor and other provinces are out of government control but we do not know which and even if we knew we have no way prooving it. Take Zabadani for example, we know that it is under rebel control. However according to activists it is such for about 2 months. We had no idea for 2 months about this town, nor had we any sources. Creating map for this conflict is currently impossible. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. If it is (or becomes) possible to create such a map, I think that it would be extremely helpful. I believe we faced some of the same challenges with the Libya map, and yet we managed to address them. --Epeefleche (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Support As more reliable reports come out of areas under the control of anti-Assad elements, such a map would help to centralize accounts of who is in control of what, even if these accounts are not comprehensive or current. Neumannk (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Support I believe when we still classified the Libyan civil war as an uprising, we used a map, and it shows where certain areas are in support or controlled by either side. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 03:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example of a map I created based on the Libyan Civil War map, and it would need to be updated.

Support A map would help illustrate the extent of the conflict in an easy to read, easy to understand way. The Libyan map also started with a large amount of gaps in information that were filled in as events developed. It was still worthwhile with a few gaps in information. - 86.41.38.98 (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Support The map could at least demonstrate the current death toll for each city/town, regardless of 'territory' held by anyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.43.149.84 (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Map is a great aid for the visualization of the conflict. --antiXt (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Support Except for Rastan is not a loyalist city, it was retaken by the FSA a few days ago.Goltak (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Support IMHO, references for the details should be discussed on the Commons image talk page, with meta-reference to the main article and timeline pages, where most of the references should be found, and the referencing method should be clear in the Description etc. section of the Image page. The title debate can wait until the main Wikipedia article title debate (uprising vs civil war) is closed - there's no point having two parallel debates about the same issue - and this is mostly irrelevant for the image itself - most readers won't notice the file name (i've seen academics attribute authorship of images used on the Wikipedia as (c) Wikipedia, despite this being obviously wrong after a few clicks and careful reading). Boud (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose There's really no verifiable information upon which to base such a map. It would just be a pointless exercise of conjecture. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose The map would be based on death tolls that vary widely and conflicting reports of bombardments. In the Libya situation there was at least reports of cities changing hands that could be mapped but this is not the case here. Putting data in graphical form is not worth while if the data is not good. XantheTerra (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Jabal al-Zawiya “massacres”

I would like to write a section on this topic. But have found myself writing a rather long piece (sort of 6 paragraphs) just around these 2 main articles OneTwo What does everyone think? Does this merit a section of it's own? Or simply a mention somewhere? AKhani84 (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge it with 2011–2012 Idlib Governorate clashes and just create a new section just as we created new section for Ramadan massacre in siege of Hama article. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The Jabal al-Zawiya massacre is more notable than "Ramadan massacre", because the first is a specific event, whereas "Ramadan massacre" relates to escalation of the uprising in general across Syria in the month of Ramadan. I think it deserves a separate article, to be split from 2011–2012 Idlib Governorate clashes, but for now it can also be made a section there and later split, when more info is available. If i'm remembering correctly, some 33 people were killed in the massacre?Greyshark09 (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It was 111 people actually. Goltak (talk) 16:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

At what point does "uprising" become "civil war"?

Just a question for the editors of this page to start thinking about, at what point, or ever, does an "uprising" turn to a "civil war"? I was reading an article in the New York Times [1] which is calling the uprising a "fledgling civil war." What rubric should be used to determine when, if ever, this page should be renamed. Thinking this out now may save alot of frustration later.--Found5dollar (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME, however this criterium is right now questionable as sources call it both uprising and civil war. If you want you can request a move of page to 2011-2012 Syrian civil war. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

We use the name that reliable sources use for the conflict. Organizations such as the Red Cross have explicitly said that according to their definitions, this is not a civil war. Other authorities such as the UN, and major media outlets such as CNN, do not use the term 'civil war' for this conflict either. Therefore, neither does Wikipedia. EllsworthSK, we've already had numerous move requests to this effect and they have all been turned down for the reason I just gave. I do not believe it is wise to encourage people do make another such request because that will inevitably fail as well. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It should be renamed into civil war. Because it is a civil war now basically. Protests are now a footnote compared to armed clashes. The situation has developped into a full insurgensy, with opponent regrouping in divers militia and insurgents groups. A new move request is necessary--ChronicalUsual (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

What exactly is it that you do not get about WP:RS? - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

A lot of reliable sources call it civil war [2] --ChronicalUsual (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Those mainly seem to be saying the conflict is "escalating into" / "inching towards" / "sliding to" / "at risk of" civil war, that civil war is "a real possibility", that there's "danger of" a civil war, that people "warn of" civil war, etc. etc. Not many sources actually call it a civil war at this moment. And, as I wrote earlier, articles saying that the UN brands the conflict a civil war are mistaken. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, even ChronicalUsual agrees with me. As for WP:RS quick Google News search shows us that in past month 1410 sources used this words in this or that context [3], you also based your arguments on fact that opposition holds no ground, now they control 2/3 of third biggest city, unknown number of districts in Hama, majority of Rif Dimashq (Damascus countryside) governorate, major part of Idlib governorate and also control parts of Deir ez-Zor governorate. This isnt anymore just civilian uprising (even though civilian protests against government continues) and that is why 15 minutes from Damascus center there are checkpoints manned by FSA fighters with AKs and RPGs, why in past month security forces casulties tripled and why USA is evacuating its embassy. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The Hama Massacre was not called a civil war yet the muslim brotherhood held the city of Hama before the massacre began. 40,000 civilans, mbs, and soldiers died, all in the period of 1 month. Here 7,000 died, in the period of 11 months. I7laseral (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It was a civil war. The Hama battle was not a civil war, it was a battle during this civil war. But the actual insurgency of muslim brotherhood lasted years, not one month. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

But wikipedia does not label it a civil war, does it? I7laseral (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

There are a big reason to make a new vote on a possible change of name. During the observer missions, the FSA gained ground while the Syrian Army had to leave the cities in order to comply with the plan. Now, they are holding some quarters in various cities. But it seems that this time the Syrian army is lauching a massive attack to retake full control, in Douma, Hama, Damascus suburbs , Homs. It clearly becomes more and more a civil war.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

the observer mission had nothing to do with it, violence was at the same 30-40 civilians dead each day during the observer mission. The defection of Mustafa al sheik and the establishment of a command council within the FSA was the turning point for the FSA. Sopher99 (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The Arab league in his official report said that the bloodshed was cut during their mission, and that the syrian army and their heavy weapons mostly left cities. When they visisted Zadabani, fighting stopped as well. And now that Syria has refused Arab league plan, the army is back on offensive in Hama, Douma, Ghouta, Rankous and the journalists who had been allowed in during the mission are sent back home. I find it hard to believe it is a coincidence. But anyway, it has no importance in the debate of calling this a civil war--ChronicalUsual (talk) 10:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The opposition have used armoured vehicles in Homs, and there are clashes between the FSA and government forces all the time. How can it not be a civil war when armed Syrian factions are battling each other? (talk 08:09, 4th February 2012 (UTC)

Move to Civil War discussion

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move, this one will benefit from some aging in the wine rack for a while. Mike Cline (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

---

A lot of sources are now calling it a civil war as much as an uprising. [4]

Recently, with the arab league mission, FSA gained ground and went bolder in their attacks. Now the Syrian army is responding with counter offensives and vowed to crush the rebels.

Protests are now a footnote to armed clashes. The FSA is an umbrella for various insurgent groups across the countries. There are reports as well of sectarian violence in Homs. I think that calling it a civil war would be more logic.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 10:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

But the article is not named "protests", so there is no inaccuracy. "Uprising" is sufficient, especially now that the insurgents are so weak. FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

"...especially now that the insurgents are so weak." You have got to be freaking kidding me. 24.181.229.213 (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Reliable sources are not calling this a civil war. The United Nations have stated that the country could be driven into civil war, the Red Cross have explicitly stated that they do not consider this a civil war, US president Obama sees 'great volatility' in Syria and major news outlets such as CNN refer to the situation as 'unrest' or similar terms. Notice how none of them are saying the situation is presently a civil war. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Calling it a civil war would give the false impression that the uprising is an armed rebellion. This is wrong, since in the beginning it was just peaceful demonstrations and when the government shot the protesters and shelled buildings, people started to take up weapons to protect themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anas1954 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Mildly Approve The New York Times most certainly IS calling it a civil war. So are others.Ericl (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose the New York Times article reports: "At a funeral for one of the more than 5,400 victims of Syria’s unfolding civil war...", so I don't think that is a great example of a source stating that the conflict is a civil war. Some sources might use the term "civil war" however in all the articles I have read there has always been a qualifier such as "unfolding", "emerging", "nearing", etc. I think Uprising is a proper definition at the moment and the article shouldn't jump ahead of the terminology in the news. -- Guest2625 (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support It has, at the least, moved to SOME form of armed conflict now. 48Lugur (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• mildly support - It has become an armed conflict now, thats undeniable, especially with the battles in the outskirts of Damascus now. In my opinion, it is a low intensity civil war, but that dosn't really make for a good wikipedia article title. TBH, id say that the article will most likely be renamed to Syrian civil war within the next few weeks if the situtation continues as it is right now. Also, please, should it be renamed, call it Syrian civil war, not 2011 - 2012 syrian civil war, the amount of pointless arguments that occured over the article for war in Libya last year between 2011 Libyan civil war or just Libyan civil war was annoyingKspence92 (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Neutral - don't feel a special affection to any of those. Some sources use "civil war" some use "uprising", while "revolt" and "rebellion" is also implemented to describe the events (depends whom we ask).Greyshark09 (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose there is a clear policy in place for page names. Reliable sources are not calling it civil war, some articles are referencing it as a possibility, or discussing the subject. But none of them is consistently referring to the Syrian crisis as a "civil war". Yazan (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose, for the same reasons described above by Yazan. Sopher99 (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support - The fact that the FSA controls some sort of territory, and is an army itself trying to capture territory is enough to show a civil war. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 22:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, current situation is not civil war.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, although its now an armed conflict but many are still calling it 10-month old uprising. 60.49.62.153 (talk) 07:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - It is an armed conflict within one country with well defined sides, each side holding some ground (although very asymmetrically). --78.0.195.236 (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - via TaalVerbeteraar, Zozo, and Sopher's arguments. I7laseral (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - i did put the proposal at the page headline, as required. The status so far is the following:

Opposing - 6 users (+ 1 ip)

Neutral - 1 user

Support - 4 users (+1 ip)

I guess more votes will soon join in.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You forgot to count me :( --ChronicalUsual (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are the 5th.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. There are two armies, skirmishing in nearly every Syrian town. As of today, Homs basically looks like Misrata did a couple of months ago. If this ain't a civil war, then what is? --bender235 (talk) 12:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment

In AFP article: "Analysts warn that the conflict, between a guerrilla movement backed by growing numbers of army deserters and a regime increasingly bent on repression, has largely eclipsed the peaceful protests seen at the start of the uprising.

"It is the beginning of an all-out armed conflict," said Joshua Landis, head of the Centre for Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma."

The change of name would only follow the change on the ground

Another point of a civil war, is fight between part of the populations. There are a lot of reports on Alawis vs Sunni killind and revenge killings. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/us-syria-alawites-idUSTRE81024G20120201 --ChronicalUsual (talk) 20:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the Rwandan Genocide had all those features, but it wasn't a civil war. --Quintucket (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was. The genocide just overshadowed it. --bender235 (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I stated my reasons several times on this page. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - As the one that accidentally started this whole discussion, I do not feel it is time to switch to "Civil War." Not enough reliable sources are referring to the uprising using that term, but this could change rapidly and the editors of this page should be prepared for it.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support per arguments by ChronicalUsual (at the beginning of this discussion) and Spesh531, and also [5]. -- antiXt (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: This isn't a vote, wikipedia is not a democracy. The !votes should be policy-based and we have a very clear policy as to the page names.
• At any rate, the conflict does seem to be heading into a civil war but I don't think this article is the place to discuss it. I think we should fork it into a new article 2012 Syrian Civil War or something in that line, and add a background section about the protests and how the conflict escalated into this. There are two main reasons for this: 1) the article is too long as it is. 2) for almost a year the uprising was just that, an uprising; protests, demonstrations, riots and at worst acts of sabotage and until now nobody characterizes it as a civil war. After January we're bound to find more and more references to civil war, and I think it would be sensible to represent that in its own article. The two article are obviously very well related, but it is important not to lump the whole conflict under one label. Yazan (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

This seems like it might be a good idea, especially if we have reliable sources talking about the point where the uprising turned into a civil war. --Quintucket (talk) 08:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia us actually very much democratic (WP:WEIGHT), but it should rely on good sources.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: Like has been said above: wait for more reliable sources. Also as mentioned above, we've got the NYTimes calling it an "unfolding" civil war, so we may be close, but one paper isn't enough. --Quintucket (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Mildly Support: Per others. EkoGraf (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose: This is not a civil war, but a revolution with some armed street fightings. Nima Farid (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Some? o.O FSA has captured several tanks recently in Homs and are using them. What you call that? Hahaha. And revolution would indicate that most Syrians are against Assad, while the most conservative estimates by even the Western independent organisations state that still another 40-60 percent of Syrians are still with the government. In essence its 50-50. EkoGraf (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support: its definitely now a civil war especially how the media is portraying it, and battles throughout the country we are always hearing towns or cities now under control of the Free Syrian Army, then the government/regime trying to regain those towns, this is a similar situation to the Libyan civil war. 90.216.195.163 (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment : If the reports flooding in over twitter right now are true, then this is a civil war. The Hama massacre is repeating itself in Homs, the rebel stronghold of Zabidani is under attack, as is Rastan and Idlib. A huge Pro Assad offensive it seems. Of course, take this with a pinch of salt as its from twitter.Kspence92 (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2012 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.7.235.143 (talk)

• Mildly support: this is because the FSA control a large amount of land the country, including 2/3 of Homs, parts or "swathes" of Idlib goveronate and city as well as Zabadani. They control Rastan, which is a fairly large city and did control the surburbs of Damascus before they were driven back recently. I've seen reports saying "fledging civil war" and Russians calling it a civil war. [6] Goltak (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - this is an uprising not a civil war.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• comment - Both sides control territory, both sides field armed forces, with many troops deserting from the army, the FSA is even using armoured vehicles now. The SNC is acting as a government in exile for the rebels. All these factors point to civil war. Of course, this begs the question - At what point does an uprising become a civil war ?94.7.235.143 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.254.74 (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The two sides still aren't equal or solid enough for this to properly be called a civil war. And opposition to Syria's current regime is an extremely general umbrella term, so the definition is currently being blurred. No, it should continue to be called "uprising", until anti-government forces succeed in actually making significant gains. For example, if they truly control "50 percent of Syrian territory" as they currently claim, then yes, the article should be moved to "Civil War" but at present they do not. Demonstrations and protests aren't considered part of a 'civil war' either, and so far this continues to comprise most of the contemporary conflict. --Katangais (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- "Uprising" describes it well. Whether it is a civil war may be debatable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - At the moment these are still just violent protests. Unlike in Libya from March until October 2011, the opposition does not have permanent hold over any territory of the country (i.e. they don't have a capital, seat of government, command headquarters, etc.), there isn't even an opposition government inside the country, and the violent mobs have no command structure. Situation could change soon (i.e. foreign intervention), but let's wait to see if it does before we change the name of the article. --Tocino 21:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is far from being a civil war. There is pretty much only one armed side in the conflict. The opposing armed forces are way too small in size. If this qualifies as a civil war then you can pretty much say every country in the middle east is involved in a civil war. Opposing armed forces are in conflict with governments everywhere in the mideast but the situation is not a refered to as a civil war.72.53.155.218 (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Small? o.O In the words of the FSA themselves they have 20,000-30,000 armed defectors under their command. Wouldn't call that small. Not to mention in the opposition reports themselves now at least 5-10 government soldiers are dying daily. Never mind. I'm still in the mild support category cause this has not raised to a real conventional civil war level but is close to there. But highly disagree that there is only one armed side to the conflict. You think unarmed protesters have captured Zabadani, half of Homs and temporarily those Damascus suburbs? Please... EkoGraf (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Support - It is obvious that there is a civil war. The Syrian opposition is armed. There are militias, there is the Free Syrian Army. They are in an armed conflict with the Syrian Government. If I may, I would like to tell the skeptics to read reports from those in Syria, and they will tell you, this is a Civil War. I'm glad that there is finally a debate/discussion going on in Wikipedia about renaming this article, because I remember how long it took for the Libyan uprising article to finally be renamed to the Libyan Civil War article. And that seems to only have changed because of the no-fly zone. Please do not wait for a no-fly zone. That will make it seem that unless the United States and NATO gets involved, it's just an uprising. This is obviously a civil war, and everyone needs to see that. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 22:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Support - It meets all criteria to call this a civil war. An opposing military vs another military. Many defecting from the Syrian military are bringing their own weapons. If reports from Twitter and Youtube FROM Syria are correct, as someone one stated here, then it is a civil war. Take some time to watch the news coverage, it's obvious. Eventually the article name will change anyways, so why wait? It reminds me of the Libyan Civil War article. It would eventually have been changed no matter what, everyone knows this.--99.159.253.228 (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - You only get one vote. It's a bit obvious that the above two comments are the same person. -Guest2625

• Comment - The person above my vote, obvious to me, has a similar opinion as mine. Look above, there's more than 3 opposing comments in a row. They cannot all be the same people. I find it offensive that you said "You only get one vote". Are you lecturing me? You declare that we are the same people simply based on sight. I find it silly you are telling me that I only get one vote. Are you insulting my intelligence? Because that would mean you are attacking me personally. For a complete stranger to assume that I would not know that I only get one vote, to declare that I am the same person as someone that voted below me, because it is "obvious" to you, it wasn't obvious to me or anyone else that posted here. This bothers me because earlier today, I had another user declaring I was vandalizing, undoing all of my edits for 2012 Republican Primary articles simply because I had organized the list of candidates in order of most delegates. Re-think before you declare someone of doing something. I know you probably had good intentions, but you could not possibly know if two people are the same people simply because they agree on something. --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I apologize. Coincidences happen all the time in this world. I based my assumption on the fact that the above ip address:99.159.253.228 is from Colombus, Ohio and that you state on your talk page that you are from Colombus, Ohio. Comment syntax and timing were also very similar. -Guest2625 (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - It's completely alright! I was just bothered yesterday, I'm all fine now :) --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support this is a civil war. Anyone watching the news can see that it is. Two sides fighting each other. This isn't just some small conflict, this is big, and the international community knows it.--166.147.99.132 (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support Really people, the minute two sides go against eachother, and there are many people dying in 1 month, it is definetely a civil war. 67.80.121.162 (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Count of Support/Oppose : For the moment I counted 17 supports and 16 opposes. It looks like consensus will be hard to achieve and only a small majority will happen. We will probably have to start a separate page for civil war. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, actually, if no consensus emerges, the result is retaining the status quo. Not circumventing the lack of consensus by forking the article into a civil war article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The lack of consensus will make status quo on this article which will stay as it is. But it won't prevent a separate article to talk about the whole military part exclusively.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support - This has developed into more than an uprising, how much blood has to spill before the folks who oppose the name change can call this a war? Reports from CNN that 46 people were killed on Monday. As we discuss this, the Syrian Armed forces (Army, Republican Guard, etc.) are trading hot rounds of lead with the Free Syrian Army. Also, a neighborhood was shelled and snipers continue hunt activists like they're animals. I read from Yahoo News that 9 soldiers from the Syrian Army (pro-Assad) were killed and many more wounded, the same day 46 others (anti-Assad) were killed. Therefore it's clear there has become a constant exchange in gunfire and violence overall. I think you can either call this a Civil War or perhaps a Revolution, but it's quite clear (to me at least) that the uprising is over and Syria is now a war zone. After months of violence that ranged from smaller domestic disurbances to riots with people being killed, the United States decides to close their embassy and get all of their diplomats out of the country. Why now and not earlier? This is another sign that things are getting worse. I believe the United States has enough intelligence in the country to know what's going, war has started and it was time for the U.S. to get any Americans in the country out of harms way. Zowert (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose - There is as much peaceful action as there is conflict. And almost all the bloodspilling is due to government massacres, not conflict. And conflict is usually defectors defending residential neighbourhoods. (Moemin05 (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)).

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The infobox should be changed to military conflict

Battles ongoing all across Syria, there is no sense using the "civil conflict" infobox anymore.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's first await the result of the uprising vs. civil war discussion, shall we? - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't really need to be called a "civil war" to warrant the military conflict infobox. See the Islamic uprising in Syria page. 48Lugur (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sectarian killings

Please don't add sectarian killings to the characteristics/methods. That is neither part of the protest nor the fight against the government. Sectarian killings happen in Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen, but are not part of the uprisings there. The characteristics of the uprising are definitive and conventional methods of protest and armed opposition. Sectarian killings is not accepted by the opposition, and we have no way to prove that the opposition carries out sectarian killings. You can carry out sectarian killings against alawites and not be a person against the government, just a racist. Sopher99 (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Also don't divide the sectarianism section into different ethnicities. That is biased, and strongly makes it look like the article is trying ot say Christians and Alawites as a whole aren't involved in protests. Sopher99 (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

or religion for that matter. Sopher99 (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Please read the link I provided :

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/01/us-syria-alawites-idUSTRE81024G20120201

There are Alawis who are clearly being killed because of their religion. There are sunnis civilians that have been targeted as well. It did not exist before the uprising/civil war, the last time it existed was in the islamic uprising before.

Some oppositions leaders are endorsing it, like the islamist cleric in Saudi Arabia who wants "to feed Alawis to the dogs", or the one saying that all Alawis men are murderers. And there are Alawis who said that they will fight for their community.

We should not try to hide it. It is an encyclopedia, it does not mean all opposition members want that, just that sectarian killings are among the things happenning in this uprising/civil war. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As noted above, sectarian killing occurs in Egypt (muslims vs copts) Libya (Olbeidi vs Gaddafis) yemen (shia houthis vs sunni tribes) and bahrain (shia vs Sunnis). Sectarianism in Bahrain did not exist until the Bahraini uprising. Doesn't mean it is part of the uprising. Sopher99 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

2 - Saudi arabia is Saudi Arabia. Syria is Syria. 3 - You can be a sunni who doesn't protest or take up arms against the government, but a racist who kills alawites. We have nothing that gives hardcore evidence that says the protesters or the free syrian army engage in sectarianism. Sopher99 (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Houtis revolt in Yemen existed well before the uprising. Muslims attacking Copts in Egypt too. But here, it seems that there is a clear link between the two. Some sunnis opposition members, mainly islamists, are taking on Alawis because of their domination in the syrian government. Alawis are taking on Sunnis because they feel threatened by Islamists. it is part of the event, (like by exemple islamists insurgency in Irak targeting christians, it did not exist before)

How can we say there are no links? Have you read the Reuters article provided? --ChronicalUsual (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"links" and "correlations" are not facts. They are independent research. Allegations. Sectarianism didn't exsist in Bahrain before the uprising. Doesn't mean its part of the uprising in Bahrain. The situation in Syria is near civil war. Of course tensions that didn't exsist before are going to pop up. Sopher99 (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In the islamic uprising in Syria, killings against Alawis were common. It led to a massive crackdown on muslim brotherhood. Now , a new uprising/civil war is here and sectarian killings reappear. This is not independant research, this is how members of communities feels it. Also the cleric in Saudi Arabia is a syrian islamist who lives in exil since the crackdown on Muslim brotherhood.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

if it is not done by the protesters, and it is not done by the FSA or the SNC, and if you can't prove it is done by the MB either, then it is not a method of the uprising. I want to hear what other people have to say now, no offense, but we are just repeating the last 3 paragraphs of the discussion. Sopher99 (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Al Arabiya

Just a clarification, Al Arabiya is owned by the Saudi government, and is in no way non-biased.

"Al Arabiya was created to be a direct competitor of the Qatar-based Al Jazeera.[3] As a response to Al-Jazeera's criticism of the Saudi royal family throughout the 1990s, members of the Saudi royal family established Al-Arabiya in Dubai in 2002."

58.210.98.226 (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

At the Reliable sources noticeboard the consensus was that Al Arabiya was just as reliable as a source can be. It has an editorial board, and has been consistently reliable. Jeancey (talk) 04:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

According to common sense, Al Arabiya is as reliable as People's Daily, which has an editorial board. 58.210.98.226 (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Using your logic, Xinhua is completely unreliable due to being owned by the Chinese Government. Jeancey (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

When quoting XInhua, it's always declared that the source is Xinhua, when there is conflict of interest involved. 58.210.98.226 (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, where is the consensus that Al Arabiya is "as reliable as a source can be"? The consesus seems to be "Al Arabya seems to have some issues (like so many other media outlets). That doesn't mean it can't be used as a source at all, but it needs to be used with special care. In particular when sourcing contested/controversial issues it might be a good idea to avoid using it and rely on media outlets with a better track record/reputation for unbiased, accurat, reliable and independent reporting. If something can only be sourced by Al Arabya that usually should already raise a red flag. "58.210.98.226 (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It has just as many issues as any other news source. It's not always 100% reliable, but nothing ever is. Jeancey (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Al-Arabiya is not State owned, just invested by the Saudi royal family as well as the UAE. There are no rules restricting Al arabiya, and the goverment does not appoint officials to alarabiya. Al Arabiya is not state controlled. Al arabiya is constantly quoted and refered to by other news media, such as CNN and AFP when such news sites are reporting on middle eastern affair. Barak Obama used Al arabiya to broadcast his speech in 2009. It is the second largest Arab news site in the world. I7laseral (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is the source that "There are no rules restricting Al arabiya, and the goverment does not appoint officials to alarabiya. Al Arabiya is not state controlled."?58.210.98.226 (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

...Asking that is like asking "where is your source that says CNN is not state controlled?" Its not state controlled, plain and simple. I7laseral (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It would appear to be owned by a multinational collection of companies from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Lebanon and other countries in the Persian gulf. This would indicate that they aren't directly controlled by any government and that the government can't "appoint" anyone to the company. Jeancey (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

well according to this http://www.linktv.org/mosaic/broadcasters/dubai

Al-Arabiya is an Arabic-language satellite news channel based in Dubai. It was launched in February 2003 by a group of Arab investors including the pan-Arab satellite TV pioneer MBC and Lebanon's Hariri Group. MBC is owned by Sheikh Walid al-Ibrahim, a brother-in-law of Saudi Arabia's King Fahd.

58.210.98.226 (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because one investor has ties to the saudi royal family doesn't make the entire organization under the control of that family. Jeancey (talk) 04:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• This entire discussion is pointless, because apparently the ip-user, who started it, doesn't have the slightest idea about the difference between reliable sources and the WP:NPOV guide line. There is ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM TO USE POV SOURCES in wikipedia! (as long as the sources are reliable and the article reflects all POV views). Al-Arabiya is reliable - end of story.Greyshark09 (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

report made by arab league observers

The report is adamant. There was no organized, lethal repression by the Syrian government against peaceful protesters. Instead, the report points to shady armed gangs as responsible for hundreds of deaths among Syrian civilians, and over one thousand among the Syrian army, using lethal tactics such as bombing of civilian buses, bombing of trains carrying diesel oil, bombing of police buses and bombing of bridges and pipelines.

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf

SHADY ARMED GANGS FINGERED FOR VIOLENCE, NOT ASSAD. FROM A REPORT SIGNED BY ALL BUT ONE GULF COOPERATION COUNCIL NATIONS (LESS QATAR). SAUDIS AND QATARIS MADE ALL EFFORTS TO SUPPRESS REPORT BUT WAS LEAKED ANYWAY. Drimidiri (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

"In some cities, the Mission sensed the extreme tension, oppression and injustice from which the Syrian people are suffering. However, the citizens believe the crisis should be resolved peacefully through Arab mediation alone, without international intervention. Doing so would allow them to live in peace and complete the reform process and bring about the change they desire. The Mission was informed by the opposition, particularly in Dar‘a, Homs, Hama and Idlib, that some of its members had taken up arms in response to the suffering of the Syrian people as a result of the regime’s oppression and tyranny; corruption, which affects all sectors of society; the use of torture by the security agencies; and human rights violations."

1 - The observers observe what is going on during their STAY, they are not authorized to investigate event PRIOR.

2 - The Arab League and its head Nabil Arabi confirms the killing of protesters by the Assad Regime. The UN, Human rights watch, and Amnesty International also confirm it. Journalists on the ground also confirm repression, including BBC journalists and CNN journalists. Yes journalists were allowed in this month.

3- over 100,000 videos posted on youtube and shared with conventional media confirms protests and violent repression of protests.

4 - The Arab League's observer mission head is a Sudanese intelligence general, with connection to the Darfur genocide. He was only chosen as the mission head ot calm Syrian government's fears of the mission. Arab League observers themselves said that the observer mission is just being used to "serve the regime". The observer mission was intentionally skewed as to be lenient on the Syrian government.

5 - The free syrian army only began taking territory and escalating attacks in JANUARY. What do you think happened from March 15 - December, when there was no major armed gang presence? Protesters were killed in mass by the Syrian army. And protesters they are still being by the Syrian army. Sopher99 (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The content of the Arab League observers report should have its own section as it is the first serious work done about the situation in Syria with people on the ground.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a large consensus for analysts, even amongst the arab league nations themselves, that the report is a tripe scandal used to divert attention from the need to carry out action against the Syrian government, the observer mission counts as peace proposal, and is included in the peace proposal section. Sopher99 (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It would seem we should cover both the Arab League report, and reaction to it as reported in RSs.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And the only real question as far as that goes for me is whether there's enough there to warrant its own page. Certainly both the report and reactions to it, critical and positive, should be noted. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

But We already noted in the article, both the report and the reactions and the observer defections and the Arab League's mandates. Sopher99 (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Pointless discussion as wikipedia does not use primary but secondary sources. per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC EllsworthSK (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

We use both; we just use primary sources with care.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you really believe that in this case it is even possible to use such source "with care"? Realisticlly, without admin supervision it will become nothing more than a flame war in which every user will start taking parts of the report which suits him and use it in his own context and views. It happened in every single article related to this topic. Best to let it slide and use secondary sources. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

New page for military action

Since people were almost equally divided between moving this page to a civil war page, the status quo was achieved and the move stopped.

Instead, I created a new page, called Syria civil war, which has for goal to be the much needed article linking all military operations in the country, separated from the popular uprising, as it was the main objection for people again a move of this page. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Don't fork articles without consensus, this is useless.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

We need a central article for the military operations. Right now the only link between all these operations is the infobox, not enough. The new page is useful.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh jeez, really? Please don't fork articles without discussion. I'm going to have to nominate it for deletion, which I: 1) feel bad about because I'm sure you put some work into it, and 2) didn't really want to spend my free time this morning doing. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

You can nominate, I will counter it. No reason to delete, absolutely no reason. You can also ask for a move or a rename but you will need to achieve consensus--ChronicalUsual (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd really suggest refraining from deleting the AFD template on the page again. And I don't want a move or a rename, I want the article deleted. It's redundant, unnecessary, and spurious for the reasons I listed in the nom. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you to stop infecting wikipedia with your activism.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Creating a new article with a title for which there is no consensus is considered POV-forking and is contrary to Wikipedia policy. The deletion discussion for the fork can be found here. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• On the one hand, I have sympathy for the view that the media is starting to use the phrase "Syrian Civil War". See, for example, Reuters and this editorial in the Financial Times. On the other hand, a change of that sort -- especially when it is controversial -- should wait for consensus, I would think. Yes, we will lag behind Reuters and the like, but consensus is the way of wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

File:A Collage of Syrian Martyrs.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:A Collage of Syrian Martyrs.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Unicef

Lenny Silver, Please stop. That quote only refers to further suffering of children. Unicef theorizes that more children could have died in Homs, but Unicef has too much difficulty entering Homs to confirm. The 400 children dead does not mean they all died in Homs.

http://news.yahoo.com/unicef-says-400-children-killed-syria-unrest-162328551.html

The article clearly states that its inability to conclude definitive facts in Homs only refers to the speculation of more children dead in the February Homs Bombardment. Sopher99 (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore the children were killed by Security forces, not "through the conflict". Stop trying to defend the regime.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/02/03/146346490/rights-group-says-syrian-security-forces-detained-tortured-children

Sopher99 (talk) 21:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The second article says nothing about 400 children killed by security forces. It just states that "Syrian security forces have killed, arrested and tortured children" but does not give a figure. You can't just arbitrarily combine information from two separate articles and decide that they fit together. The sentence "Over 400 children have been killed by security forces as well" should be changed to "According to human rights organizations security forces have killed, arrested and tortured children. In total, over 400 children have been killed in the conflict." or something equivalent.80.221.0.125 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC).

I'll just remove the second reference. Sopher99 (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Lebanon

There was a major gun battle, in which three were killed and dozens wounded between pro-Assad and anti-Assad people in Tripoli, Lebanon. Is this part of the Syrian uprising or not?Ericl (talk)

No, they do it all the time, for whatever reasons. It could perhaps be mentioned here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Lebanese_protests#Spillover_from_Syria FunkMonk (talk) 14:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Its a ripple effect. EkoGraf (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It happened six months ago as well, and even more people died, I have no idea why it's supposed to be such big news now. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Claims and counter-claims

To keep this article neutral, and since nothing can be verified, we should provide counterclaims to every claim. As is, opposition claims are overrepresented throughout the article, which makes it POV. For example the "allegations of rape". Not a shred of evidence, apart from the claims of involved characters. But it stands unchallenged. FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree. It is very unbalanced and worst, there are some things wrote like facts when they are just presented by one activist source.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I Don't agree. This is the 2011-2012 Syrian uprising. Not the 2011-2012 Syrian government's uprising. Besides we already put claims and counter claims. We already stated that the government denies all charges against it. We all already put the governments version of the death toll. We put the government's version of the suicide bombing. We clearly stated that the government does not accept responsibility, and we clearly stated that the government believes terrorists are the only problem. What more do you want? Sopher99 (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Helpful template

Hi everyone, I do not know much at all about the topic of your article, I just dropped by to add the following template for you, which you may like

Rtne|syria-unrest-assad-opposition/ (text inserted into archive) This template has been deleted or changed. Penyulap ☏ 15:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyhow, I notice that your lead section is a bit out of hand, may I suggest just add a new section called 'overview' to the top of the article, then cut and paste the lot into that new section, then write a plain language summary of the article as the lede. That may help. I added a redirect also, maybe there are others that are needed. Have fun ! Penyulap _talk 05:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There are also google based less focused templates available, such as this

Kudzu1, why do you think this promotes an external site? Also why do you feel it's an "especially unreliable source" it's not a commercial site, although it might appear that way at first glace, it's actually government run as far as I am aware, so it's often better than google as a source in many respects. Penyulap _talk 03:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just the opposite. The Russian government is a staunch ally of the Assad regime, and RT has demonstrated a marked pro-Assad bias. It does not always provide accurate information; it's basically a watered-down Pravda for the digital age, in that it blends news and propaganda and expresses the political opinions of the Kremlin. By having a banner here, we call attention to and thus promote RT's deeply flawed coverage over that of other media organizations. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, I am aware that every source of imformation in existence is biased by definition, but wasn't aware there were any strong concerns over this, please forgive me I know more about space stations and than I so about Syria, please, can you tell me what major news sources there are which would be a counter to this, I will be very pleased to make a searchbox for them as well if you like. The more good sources that are available to editors the better the quality of the article. I simply saw page after page after page of articles and thought this is a goldmine for someone. Penyulap _talk 10:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just as a note, I have previously removed this because there is not reason why a particular news outlet, biased or not, should be singled out to get sources from. If this stays, then there is reasonable cause to add similar boxes for Al Jazeera, BBC, Fox news, Al Arabiya, Reuters, The Huffington Post, RIA Novosti, etc. etc. etc. This would unreasonably clog up the talk page. If you don't allow any of the others, then there is a problem of WHY RT is the only one. Thus I think that all of them should be removed. Jeancey (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Alqaeda, again

I just want to remind anyone eager to add alqaeda back into this page that we already had a long and fruitful discussion about this on the talk page. The discussion went on so long it was deleted by moderators. We concluded that all claims of alqaeda were unverified and did not belong in the Syrian uprising page, not least because we determined that even if alqaeda was present, it does count as part of the opposition or the uprising, as the protesters and FSA have taken positions against alqaeda. In the same way alqaeda opposes the Yemeni government but is not part of Yemeni opposition or the uprising taking place, so too did we conclude alqaeda in Syria, if confirmed (which it is not), is not part of the opposition r the uprising.

I say this because Mcclatchy, a new source which I don't even know if it is reliable or not, has caught attention for writing an article in which it claims US Intelligence members believe Zarqawi (alqaeda's new leader) is behind directly behind the Midan damascus bombing.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/02/10/138593/us-officials-al-qaida-behind-syria.html

One should not that the officials are unnamed, and therefore this report can be considered dubious.

Furthermore it is only what those officials suspect. Nothing is verified.

Lets just leave it in the protests and armed clashes sections. Sopher99 (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Sopher99 first of all for your "Protests and armed clashes: ok but atleast put it in chronological order) (undo) " comment avoiding edit battle. We all try to "assume good intentions in others" like Wikipedia tells us but the stress is high in this situation when no one wants to accidentally help terrorists, or accidentally help regime brutality, or accidentally help cover up violent opposition, or (I hope) no one want to accidentally cover up what's embarrassing to Washington.

Thanks also for update on previous discussions. However this is much newer information, from a very well known source, and based on multiple analysts. You can find http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_McClatchy_Company that this company is 150 years old and runs 30 newspapers...Nothing "proves" reliable...even New York Times was very unreliable in 2003 reports before invasion of Iraq..but is McClatchy estaslished? yes. Well known? Yes..

My point is we do not say "this is unconfirmed" about Syrian National Council statements, so we should not say it about this report by McClatchy either. when unnamed U.S. officials support the administration position, the reader knows (or should know) a possible disclaimer, and when U.S. officials contradict, or potentially contradict, U.S. policy, readers can exercise caution about the "contrarian". But it is analysis - analysis can be wrong or right, but that goes for all statement by named officials too, and by Syrian government, and by Syrian peaceful opposition or armed opposition.

Now as for chronology. We have A, B, C, D where D happened before C...however C and D concern Al Qaeda, so it makes sense to keep them together. These are the two paragraphs (4th and 5th from top last checked) I think the slightly off chronology is ok. But if it is bothersome, how about taking C and D into a separate section, Al Qaeda involvement?

Lastly this brings up your point. You are right, Al Qaeda is not part of the official opposition. Therefore it shold not be in a wikipedia page about the opposition. But the bombings (whether by Al Qaeda or by anyone else, it could be by aliens from mars or, in seriouslyness, by any group..) they are still part of the Historical Event of the uprising/civil war in Syria (there is clearly both: a peaceful brave courageous uprising, and also a rocket armed rebel fighters). So it is part of the article on the historical event: all major events, by any group, which are tied to the unfolding events (these bombings clearly meet this conditions) are part of the entry for that reason. Peace, Harel (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed then, we will keep any such occurrences in the historical event sections. Sopher99 (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This discussion is useless. Alqaeda is in every arab country for hte past 10 years, they don't need to be singled out just to serve the Syrian governments interests. I7laseral (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Part of the opposition or not Al Qaeda is involved in this conflict, wether some politicians want to admit it or not. So they are part of this historical event as Harel has put it. If their involvement in this conflict continues to grow than the issue can simply be resolved by putting in a third coloumn for beligerents in the infobox. One the opposition, second the government and third Al Qaeda. Since both the opposition and the government are against them. Problem solved. EkoGraf (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Mention it in the article, at this point it is not clear enough to add to the infobox. If these American documents themselves somehow slip out, sure, it changes things. FunkMonk (talk) 04:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This could perhaps mean something: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Feb-12/162941-al-qaeda-leader-backs-syrian-revolt-against-assad.ashx#axzz1m8TpOob0 FunkMonk (talk) 07:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Zawahiri saying not to trust the west or arab governments? doesn't mean anything. But i think this may mean something. http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/02/05/192672.html

Anyway, discussion over. Sopher99 (talk) 12:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Not to trust"!? Eh, he's calling for all Muslims all over the world to go to Syria to fight the government. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Qaradawi did as well. And so did pretty much every sheikh outside lebanon and Syria. Besides He already defined his opposition to the Syrian government in April. He also called for muslims to fight gaddafi. Not important. I7laseral (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, "every sheikh outside Lebanon and Syria" have not done that. With the emerging stories about the Americans actually knowing that Salafists are behind the Syrian bombings, but apparently holding the info back, this info will turn out to be significant in time. As for Gadaffi, Salafists did flood to Libya to fight from all over the place, so it was certainly important there. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not for us to decide if its important or not. Our obligation is to add it if its part of the historical event. EkoGraf (talk) 15:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• There is an increasing amount of evidence about Al Qaeda or jihadists group involvments.

1) The Syrian governenent blames Al Qaeda for the suicide bombings. This not neutral, but it is a claim from one part.

2) Zawahiri fully supports the rebellion as claimed in his new video while Iran and Hezbollah have denied any involvment.

3) Iraki interior minister said that jihadists were crossing the border to fight in Syria with the rebels http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ieZhI-Ef6qIsGk1Rc48np5UVKBLQ?docId=CNG.08fe9711909c30405b5cb685b6d1bb03.811

4) US officials source blamed Al Qaeda in Irak for the bombings in Damascus and Aleppo http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/12/alqaida-zawahiri-support-syrian-uprising?newsfeed=true

It starts to be a lot of various reports coming from various sources to no be quoted. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We already know salifis are involved. Duh. Salifis make up 20% the entire adult arab population. But just like the Yemeni uprising, alqaeda is not part of the uprising, just part of the historical events. For example, the battle of Zinjibar. Sopher99 (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Al Qaeda is fighting to create an islamic state in Yemen. In Syria, they are fighting to help the syrians rebels to overthrow Assad. Zawahiri clearly stated that it was his goal. It seems that you don't like it, but if we stand by encyclopedia, source say that they are involved.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We already determined that they are a third party to this. The opposition hates them. The government hates them

Actually the government does not hate them, because they released alqaeda's number one leader for operations against Europe from prison. SO i guess alqaeda is on the government's side. Pershmega supports the rebels, Hamas supports the rebels. Hezbollah supports the Syrian government. iran supports the Syrian government. If we put Alqaeda, we put in Iran and Hezbollah, and Pershmega.

Please. Enough is Enough. Sopher99 (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Jihadists groups are the only one with reliable source of being on the ground --ChronicalUsual (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thats not true. You only have an iraqi minister to back you up. Once again. A claim. Sopher99 (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

American officials, syrian governement claims, iraki minister Zawahiri supporting the rebels. You are fighting the obvious here. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh so now you believe american officials? Didn't american officials confirm that the syrian government was killing innocent civilians? I guess now it is 100% confirmed that government is killing protesters. I already knew it was true, but now we have to post it as fact.

Also we have dozens of sources, including propaganda new site russia today, saying iran and hezbollah are actively fighting the opposition. If we put in Alqaeda, We put in Hezbolah and Iran. Sopher99 (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hezbollah and Iran both denied it officially and the sources are nor various nor solid. Contrary to these one. You moving your defense line between "they are there but it is different" and "you have no source to say there are there". That's disturbing. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually the sources are so various that it includes American and Russian news sites. Your sources are the ones that aren't solid. I am just being neutral. I am saying that salifis are present(they make up 20% of the adult arab population) but they are not noteworthy to count as a separate belligerent. Any way enough is enough, we already had a huge discussion like this one. Sopher99 (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all I am removing that small tag someone added. Secondly, fact that there are salafists in Syria means nothing. They are also in France. Doesnt make them AQ members now, does it. Salafi are religious group, not an militia network under command of Zawahri. Thirdly - misintepreting original article, or even lack of reading it seems to be common here. Yes, we have report from reliable source. That one quotes suspistion of unnamed US officials (what could be basiclly anyone in US beuroctatic army), it does not say wether they are from DoD, WH, MoD, army or otherwise. Worth adding to article, but using as proof of AQ beeing side of the conflict? Hardly. As far as I remember, official US stance is that there is no concrete proof of AQ involvement. And lastly - Zawahri statement. Where exactly did Zawahri said that there are AQ operatives in Syria? Because I missed that part. Al Queda was supporting revolution in Egypt, in Libya and in Yemen. In one of these countries group linked to them has taken control over capital of Aden district. However when I look into Yemeni uprising page I dont see AQAP as part of the conflict. And good that you started with Hizbollah and IRGC discussion, number of reliable sources talking about their involvement is uncountable and its pretty obvious that HA and Iranian government deny this, AQ never said that they are operating in Syria either. So it´s seems little hypocritical from ChronicalUsual to write was he has written in this context. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are just using bad faith here. Zawahiri never denied involvments of Al Qaida, and top Iraki official said that the iraki jihadists were moving into Syria. Rumors of Hezbollah come from opposition and Hezbollah denied it.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Im just stating what I observed. And if you didnt notice, al Queda isnt exactly open for inquiries and interviews and is not state-running organization like Hezbollah. Zawahri is not answering questions and Zawahri never, ever said that AQ operatives went to Syria, nor we do have any evidence to make such claim, nor do reliable sources claim so. If you state otherwise source it. As for Iraq, they are Iranian ally in the first place and bytheway he says nothing about AQ but claims that according to his sources Syrian fighters which fought in Iraq are returning to Syria. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)