Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:44, 14 August 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Syrian civil war article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53Auto-archiving period: 15 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Syrian civil war. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Syrian civil war at the Reference desk.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arab world High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology: Social Movements High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Turkey High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving Syrian civil war was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on Error: Invalid time..

A news item involving Syrian civil war was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 16 July 2012.

Syrian civil war received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Syrian civil war article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53Auto-archiving period: 15 days

Seriously, what's wrong with you people?

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

I'm going to editorialise about the whole "civil war" terminology conflict, and this is the place to do it. Basically, there are three factions which don't want to call this a "civil war":

1. The international community, for whom admitting that it's a civil war would be the admission of its failure to broker a solution
2. The Syrian government, which wants to portray the opposition as a bunch of foreign terrorists with no political legitimacy. Admitting that it's a civil war would be tantamount to admitting that there's a meaningful part of civil society which supports the opposition.
3. The Opposition, which wants to portray the conflict as a matter of the entire Syrian populace rising up against the (illegitimate) Assad regime. Admitting that it's a civil war would be tantamount to admitting that there's a meaningful part of civil society which supports the government.

Against this perfect storm of blinkered bedfellows is the entire rest of the world, for whom it's COMPLETELY FUCKING OBVIOUS THAT IT'S A FUCKING CIVIL WAR. Take a look at this video from the BBC . Notice that the rebel soldiers are:

1. Flying a different flag than the government
2. Training in organised training camps
3. Following a command structure
4. Establishing production lines for munitions
5. Clearly controlling territory, albeit in a fluid fashion, given the disparity in armoured infantry

This is not what an "uprising" looks like. These are SOLDIERS FIGHTING A FUCKING WAR, and anybody who can't see that is a fucking buffoon who's being blinded by their own ideological limitations. Sad to see that theirs are the voices who prevail on Misplaced Pages. 188.222.88.79 (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree, at last someone is talking sense. A civil war is a civil war, regardless of how the various factions try to disguise it as something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kspence92 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I also agree. This is a civil war, not an uprising anymore. If this is not a civil war then please someone tell us how a civil war is different to what is happening now in Syria.Alexispao (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree. At this rate the only source that will refuse to admit it is a civil war is the Syrian Assad regime and Misplaced Pages. Erzan (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. This clearly isn't a mere uprising anymore.Sirtywell (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly Agree. Military units on maneuver, efforts to seize and hold territory, and oh by the way, the ICRC has certified the conflict as a Civil War. The debate should be over IMO. Its a Civil War. ArcherMan86 (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree if this is not a civil war then i would like someone to show me what is, and how it differs from this. And also be sure to include a more authoritative source on the matter than the ICRC (is there even one?i dont think so)

the refusal to name the article correctly is now blatantly stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.58.210.194 (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Strongly agree! It's a full blown civil war. Only some people don't want to call it, what it is. (Metron (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC))

I would like to propose that this article be unlocked temporarily so that kspence92 has a chance to rewrite it. He has made some very persuasive arguments that the authors of the article clearly do not have an adequate understanding of the political, social, and cultural history of Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.32.51 (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Had to edit for the genius whose ideas cant be put forward without his extravagant use of profanities. It's a good encyclopedia you are creating. Great job! Please refrain from using needless words in the future as per Misplaced Pages Guidelines. 72.53.153.82 (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Cities and towns during the Syrian uprising

I just created Cities and towns during the Syrian uprising to help us in the future in having a supporting reference about the geography of the conflict and maybe even allow us to create a map for the conflict. I thought it would be a starting point to have editors start compiling sourced information and keep track of the evolution of the situation on the ground. As indicated by Syria’s Maturing Insurgency, 5. “Syria’s maturing insurgency has begun to carve out its own de facto safe zones around Homs city, in northern Hama, and in the Idlib countryside.” So it seems helpful to have this list to keep track of these “safe zones”. In the future, this list will make the creation of a map really easy since the map creator would just need to go down the list and put the colored dots (or whatever) on a template map (the list gives the district and province of each town…)Unfortunately, the article was nominated for deletion and receiving delete votes from editors who are not involved in editing Syria articles. Take a look at the article (List of areas currently held by Syrian opposition) and see if you find it could be useful and if you would like to vote in the deletion discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_areas_currently_held_by_Syrian_opposition Tradedia (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC) updated Tradedia (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not make it into a map instead? --78.1.183.86 (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The source Tradedia provided had a good map in it on page 8 of the document, and it appears to be a very reliable source. However, I'm not sure if Misplaced Pages can use it due to copyright issues. I made an amateur map based on the info provided on the map in the document, but I'm not sure if it's good enough to be included in the article.

File:Map of the Syrian Uprising- June (Final).gif

Description: "Situation in Syria as of June 2012." ---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What about Deiz-Ez Zor, that's in control of the FSA. Syria's Kurdistan is out of assads control also. - Goltak (talk) 5:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The source didn't provide information on Kurds or the situation in Syria's eastern parts, so I didn't include that in the map. ---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

This source shows that large swathes of Deiz ez zor province in rebel hands whilst this shows that the army withdrew from the main city and then it was almost completley controlled by the oppostion, . Good work on the map, I hope you can include this information to make it even more accurate. - Goltak (talk) 8:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay I added this to the map's description: "(Note: this map does not contain the situation in Syria's eastern parts, due to lack of solid information. However, it has been reported that parts of Deiz al-zor governorate are in rebel control as of June 24, 2012)". The Reuters article you cited does mention that because of media control by the Syrian government, information on the situation in Syria's east is hard to get. This explains why this report didn't provide details for the eastern provinces. I don't want to change the map now, because there are still other parts of Syria's east in which the situation is very unclear. If I include Deir al-Zor, then I'd have to include those other parts as well. ---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

On the map key it says "Rebels". But they call themselves the Free Syrian Army. "Rebel" has a romantic tone with a lot of baggage associated. They probably don't see themselves as rebels, but legitimate citizens trying to take back their country from an illegitimate war criminal and his mafia cronies. Others see it as a sectarian religious conflict. Others tribal conflict. Anyway, I think rebel is a POV term, maybe change it "Free Syrian Army and allied groups". Green Cardamom (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Update: There is now the article Cities and towns during the Syrian uprising which should contain all the maps ever made about the Syrian civil war along with a sortable table that has up-to-date control status (and refs) for about 100 cities, towns, etc. Tradedia (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Azeri?

Who created the Azeri section and why? There aren't even any sources. VossPL (talk)

New move request from Syrian Civil War (2011–present) to Syrian civil war

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Syrian Civil War. Clear consensus to remove the parens, but this RM has been muddied by trying to do two things at once and I don't see a consensus to decapitalise. No prejudice against a new RM that solely discusses the capitalisation issue. Jenks24 (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War (2011–present) → Syrian civil war The article needs to be moved again as the title should be decapitalized and the "2011–present" part removed because this is the only civil war there has ever been in Syria. --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments from previous discussions:

• LuK3: "There has been multiple uprisings within Syria, but only one civil war."
• TaalVerbeteraar: "The reason that only the first word should be capitalized has been explained quite clearly by Mike Selinker at Talk:Libyan_civil_war/Archive_7#Requested_move"

Opinions:

• Support Anything else wouldn't make sense. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per nom and others. EkoGraf (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Per nom and the standard approach for this type of article. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support removing the disambiguation from the end of the title. Oppose removing the capitals from the title, however. It's a completely daft notion to sit there and say that it shouldn't be, per proper grammatical standards. We as editors do not dictate whether or not to use grammar, or pick to establish when an event is permanent (like the explanation in the link above seems to suggest). Indeed there has only been one civil war in Syria, which undoubtedly will be referred to as the "Syrian Civil War" since there is only one. The only rationale for using lowercase on civil war would be to say that the conflict has no name and this is "a civil war in Syria" rather than the "Syrian Civil War". If that's the case, what is the proper name? If it's going to be called something else, a new title needs to be picked. However, if the title is to reflect a civil war, then it needs to remained capitalized. — Moe ε 20:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• On a side note, if you really are going to push to keep it lowercase and say it's unnamed, than you need to change the lead sentence. It currently reads: "The 'Syrian civil war, also referred to as the Syrian uprising, is an ongoing internal armed conflict in Syria." If it's not a proper noun, then stop treating it like one. The sentence reads that the name of the conflict is the Syrian civil war. Either the sentence capitalization needs to be fixed, or the capitalization being proposed is wrong. — Moe ε 20:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support per nom. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support re capitalization. I haven't seen any reliable sources naming the conflict with a proper noun, so neither should we. Neutral re date removal. On the pro side there has never been a civil war there. On the con side the "civil war" moniker is brand new and someone not brushed up on current events or Syrian history might think it is referring an event of the past. --Nstrauss (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support re removing disambiguation, per nom. Regarding the capitalization, I'm neutral: either is fine. -- Chronulator (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• 'Support - Yes it would be better to change this to Syrian civil war. This is clearly an uncontroversial move. Perhaps someone should list this as a technical uncontested move so the article is fixed soon, rather than wait a week for this RM to close. The consensus is clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Partial support. Given the nonexistence of a previous civil war in Syria, we don't need the date. However, don't decapitalise unless you first obtain consensus for decapitalising American Civil War, English Civil War, and Irish Civil War. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support removing (2011–present), because disambiguation is not necessary. Capitalization is a separate issue, and should really be discussed in a separate move request.--SGCM (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support removing (2011–present), regarding Nstrauss comment that on the con side the "civil war" moniker is brand new; I am not sure we should be concerned about someone not brushed up on current events thinking it referred to something in the past, the accuracy of the name itself should be paramount as opposed to what an un-informed individual might think. As well, there have been past "civil wars", but they would not have involved "Syria" (defined as the state which came into being in the 20th century), hence the unnecessary nature of the date. On the side not I do not see ANY opposition to removing the date from title, with the exception of a neutral from Nstrauss. I do not know if the 7 day rule applies, as I believe unanimity has been reached, bit I will leave to someone with more expertise on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.158.217 (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Looks messy as is. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Partial Support per Nyttend's remarks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.38.25 (talk) 08:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support (2011-present) is unnecessary, as Syria has had no other civil war (as seen in pages such as American Civil War) Canuck 08:33, July 24, 2012 (UTC)
• Support on both counts, see also WP:AN#Site errors in middle of move. The disambiguative suffix is superfluous and the term should be decapitalized per WP:CAPS because it is a description (like Libyan civil war), not a long-established established proper noun as in the case of American Civil War.  Sandstein  11:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Partial support There's only been one Syrian Civil War, but we shouldn't de-capitalise the words. The title "Syrian Civil War" will suffice for now. On an additional comment this article has been nominated for re-naming three times now. It's getting to the point of being ridiculous. 2.217.121.150 (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support, there has only been one civil war in the nation. Goltak (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support, sure why not? sounds much better. Crystalfile (talk) 12:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. There is no need for a disambiguation in the title.--Cattus 13:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Snow Support I dont see any reasons to oppose this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Partial support per Moe and Nyttend. Libyan civil war is clearly an anomaly, under a move moratorium until October, which should not be used for precedent. Look through List of civil wars and you'll see an overwhelming preference for capitalization. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support -Syrian civil war is much more concise. Date not needed due to lack of previous civil wars. Capitalization not needed due to lack of sources referring to it as such.---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 23:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support I welcome that AT LAST the article has been renamed to reflect the war going on, but you're right, the date has got to go. But please capitalize the "c" and "w" so that it's "Syrian Civil War" and not "Syrian civil war." If this move is approved, then Libyan civil war ought to be changed to reflect this capitalization standard. --Ferrariguy90 (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Uh, no. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Update I have read your comments on capitalization and I have changed my opinion. I think we should focus on removing the date instead. --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - the 2011 - present part was to distiguish the current situation from previous Syrian uprisings. However, there is no previous Syrian civil war, so the the title "Syrian civil war" or "Syrian Civil War" -(i dont see how the capitilisation or lack thereof really matters that much to be honest)- makes more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.235.219 (talk) 17:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Misplaced Pages should not be in the business of making nouns proper. The year can go. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support renaming to "Syrian Civil War" (with capitalization). That seems to be the convention around here, since this is the only internationally-recognized civil war that Syria's been in. Plus, it just looks better when capitalized. Master&Expert (Talk) 19:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Can you present any majority or even plurality of sources that support capitalisation? That is the standard here: what reliable sources say, not what "looks better". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I Disagree. Sources should only give information, not tips on capitalization, since news sources all use different styles (AP, Chicago, etc.). Encyclopaedic tradition should be applied since this IS ultimately an encyclopedia and not merely a news repository. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.38.25 (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Lothar, that applies to the subjects of our articles, not our writing conventions. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I have encountered no such firm "convention" on Misplaced Pages. Arguments dealing with articles like American Civil War and English Civil War are irrelevant because conflicts as those have well-established names in the literature. It's entirely possible that this will end up being a "Civil War", but making it such now is just pure speculation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support I can think of no reason not to do this. As it stands it is inconsistent with the Libyan civil war article -- Smurfy 19:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support For the exact same reasons as above 93.22.223.88 (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Both the renaming and capitalization. The Syrian opposition clearly aims to take control of the nation away from Assad and have taken steps toward creating a working transitional government as well as seeking support from other nations. Given the scope of the "uprising" it easily fits the definition of a civil war. Coinmanj (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support The Arab League called the conflict as 'civil war'. There were no other civil wars in the history of Syria. Furthermore the rebels organized a political entity, which fights against the Assad regime. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support removal of dates, but Oppose decapitalisation. It is the Syrian Civil War. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support removing dates, but absolutely oppose decapitalisation. There really isn't any sense in decapitalising it since, as mentioned earlier, it is the only one, similar to the American Civil War, which is capitalized for the same reason - that it's the only civil war in the country and therefore has no other identifier.--` (talk) 17:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support because I can. --173.13.174.194 (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Seems better Zaminamina (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Having "present" in the title is of no apparent value. It's going to be renamed at some point to civil war. Jimerb (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Summary of Opinions

Last updated by: Nstrauss (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Removal of dates:
  • Support: FunkMonk, EkoGraf, Rangoon11, Moe, EllsworthSK, Chronulator, BritishWatcher, Nyttend, SGCM, 99.232.158.217, Kudzu1, 74.179.38.25, Canuck, Sandstein, 2.217.121.150, Goltak, Crystalfile, Cattus, Knowledgekid87, BDD, Futuretrillionaire, Ferrariguy90, Tonemgub2010, 86.156.235.219, 93.142.239.193, LuK3, Asarlaí, Kspence92
  • Neutral: Nstrauss
  • Oppose: TaalVerbeteraar
• Removal of capitalization:
  • Support: FunkMonk, EkoGraf, Rangoon11, EllsworthSK, Nstrauss, BritishWatcher, Kudzu1, Sandstein, Goltak, Crystalfile, Cattus (?), Knowledgekid87, Futuretrillionaire, TaalVerbeteraar, 93.142.239.193
  • Neutral: Chronulator, 86.156.235.219
  • Oppose: Moe, Nyttend, 74.179.38.25, 2.217.121.150, BDD, Ferrariguy90, Tonemgub2010 (?)

Moratorium?

In order to preserve order and focus on reporting the actual event rather than pissing around endlessly over the name, I'm of the mind that a Libyan-style moratorium on page moves following the closure of this one would be a helpful and productive thing. Input from others would be appreciated. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, but after this move, which is a no-brainer and has overwhelming support above.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus to move to Syrian Civil War?

I think everybody agrees the 2011 - present part is unneccesary, and nobody seems to want to keep it. time to change it now? or should we wait a little longer? Kspence92 (Kspence92)02:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Technically that's not correct, since TaalVerbeteraar expressed opposition to the removal of the "(2011-present)". His comment: "There have been numerous discussions on the inclusion of the year in the title, and every time the consensus was to keep it. Let's not try to sneak in a removal of the date via a technical (capitalization) move." --Nstrauss (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

* Syrian civil war. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Nstrauss is correct. For me, removing the capitalization is the important bit. I wouldn't support a rename to Syrian Civil War with the capitals. I'm neutral regarding the removal of the date, as FunkMonk has presented a pretty compelling argument why it's no longer necessary. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Syrian civil war does look better. Still the 2011-present is just clunky and pointless. Just move it to Syrian civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.168.52 (talk) 11:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Whilst there is no consensus on the capitalisation issue, there seems to be consensus on the removal of the date, im pretty sure that every single person here, bar perhaps one maybe, supports removing "2011 - present", so imo, it should be immediately moved to Syrian Civil War, and then discuss the capitalisation issue to try and come to a consensus on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.169.78 (talk) 00:53, 5 August 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sheherazad Jaafari

Hi, I tried to start an article about Sheherazad Jaafari, but it was deleted pretty fast, so I got this so far http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Tonemgub2010/Sheherazad_Jaafari. Is anyone able to help me write this article? There are lots of good references on the net and Al-Arabiya re-launched their "Syria Leaks" section the day before yesterday as they hacked her e-mail. --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Why does she need an article? FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Early opposition violence not mentioned

There's a myth that the uprising started peacefully, which is basically wishful thinking, but here's a report form March 2011 which could be used as source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/143026#.UBF4gaDnbRi FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not Significant 200 police officers died in the Egyptian revolution, and dozens in the Tunisian and Yemen revolutions. Police officers deaths as a reaction of police shooting protesters is a normalcy.Sopher99 (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

^Wow, that's some extreme POV right there. It was claimed the opposition was entirely peaceful for months and months, the article clearly shows that is false. Also shows why the government became less tolerant. Certainly needs to be added then. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You are Pov pushing. Nowhere in the lede does it say protesters were peaceful (even though they were). Sopher99 (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

On Friday police opened fire on armed protesters killing four and injuring as many as 100 others. According to one witness, who spoke to the press on condition of anonymity, "They used live ammunition immediately -- no tear gas or anything else." How does that prove your point? Article says that riots, which ensured afterwards, were response to killing of protesters. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the report would be worth a citation if true, but it's not reliable. This Google News query shows that many reliable sources covered the event but none of them corroborated the killing of police officers. On top of that the source, Arutz Sheva, has an acknowledged Zionist slant. How that might play into their reporting of the Daraa incident, I don't know, but it is evidence of unreliability. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow, amazing scrutiny here, compared to when it concerns completely unverifiable opposition claims! Can I go ahead and remove "Iranian" and "Hezbollah" casualties from the infobox? But I gather what counts is that something has been reported by reliable sources, and I don't buy that israelnationalnews would be considered unreliable here in any other context. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Its a Zionist news source. Literally. It's self declared mission is to promote Zionism/ Pro-Israelism. Only 2 months ago did Israeli publicly drop their support for keeping Assad as president. I7laseral (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Who cares if it's Zionist? And how exactly did Israel "support" the Syrian government? By consistently condemning Assad? Some support! But no one is fooled, Israel remained neutral in the beginning of the conflict, waiting for the Arabs to weaken each other. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If there are problems with the sourcing of other statements in this article, then by all means, fix them. As for this particular issue, I'm deeply concerned that the event was heavily covered yet there doesn't seem to be a single other source that corroborates Arutz Sheva's account. You should be too. --Nstrauss (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

A mention of the sometimes violent reactions of the protesters to the shootings is still required to keep a balanced pov. So reports of police or soldier deaths caused by the opposition in the early months of the protests should be noted in the article. EkoGraf (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Only if reliably sourced, no? --Nstrauss (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

If you take the same merit on AQ and remove it as well, I´ve got your back, Jack. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the deaths of the seven human beings--police officer or protester--during this civil war is very significant. It is important to state that the very beginnings of the protests were not an entirely peaceful uprising as believed; otherwise it looks like we are ignoring important parts of the entire picture. Included is a Middle Eastern (Lebanese) and verifiable source that does not have a Zionist slant: http://www.yalibnan.com/2011/03/21/7-syrian-policemen-killed-in-sunday-clashes-report/ Pounamuknight (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there should be no excuse for leaving such info out, we have info with even more duvious sourcing in the artifcle. It is important to show that the opposition was violent from the beginning, since the common (false) Western narrative is that it only became violent after months and months. If we could find some more reliable sources about early violence, I'll not hesitate to add it to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how one of our contributors has become the authority on the truth of what is being reported by reliable sources. --Nstrauss (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that article admits it was only reporting on what was on the "Damascus Press news website." Hardly reliable. Aside from that, the source, Ya Libnan, is a volunteer organization that until recently was nothing more than a blog. And given the fact that it was formed to founded to support street demonstrations it's hard to imagine it being anywhere near as reliable as the much larger number of reliable sources that reported on the same event and didn't report anything about police officers being killed. --Nstrauss (talk) 05:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No, good points. I'm in the process of investigating this further (inbetween work work & home work). Pounamuknight (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Protest images

It should be pretty clear that there a large parts of the Syrian population that are both for and against Bashar al Assad. Since this article is now about a "civil war" instead of a one sided uprising, showing images of both sides should be required, which it was even before the move. But for whatever reason, some biased editors remove pro-Assad protest images on the ridiculous ground that "any totalitarian gov can easily organize a massive "support" demonstration". That's funny, considering that Lattakia is universally acknowledged as being one of the most pro-regime cities! Please get some basic knowledge about the issue before editing, thanks. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Support Funky's opinion. EkoGraf (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

First, I agree with your proposal as fact that regime can organize demos has nothing to do with it having popular support among part of Syrian population. Opposition organizes demos as well. Second, Latakia is not recognized as one of the most pro-regime cities. Unlike in Tartous, Palmyra and other cities, clashes happened there and Syrian navy was even sent to suppress riots. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with FunkMonk. I actually think this entire article is actually biased towards the opposition, too. SuperHero2111 (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Detailed, Recent Map Found

Here is a map from Stratfor on the situation in Syria as of July 25 2012. It contains a lot of good information. I don't think it can be included in the article, but it's still a good resource. Hope this helps.---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

It is an excellent map. Maybe someone can do their own version based on this one as a source and we can use it in the article. EkoGraf (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Shamefully it lacks Eastern Syria, specifically Deir ez-Zor map of control. Although finding out about that is one major pain in the arse. Also it lacks several rebel controlled territories like that medieval Crusaders fortress on northern Lebanese borders, northen Aleppo together with border crossings and town of Azaaz etc. But that can be edited in due time. Shame we don´t have Rafy here, he´d done it in no time. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I liked Rafy's Libya maps. :( EkoGraf (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Me too! Is there any way we can invite him to join the discussion over here? Bkissin (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I made a map for Syria in 2011, just like Rafy's: File:Syrian Civil War.svg –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 03:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

there is a better one here (third time (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)).

Libyan fighters in Syria

I added the Liwaa al-Umma Brigade under military support for the opposition in the infobox. There are clearly Libyan volunteers fighting in Syria, so it's appropriate to include them somewhere in the infobox. Apparently some people have a problem with this. The brigade is commanded by a Libyan commander, who lead the Tripoli Revolutionary Brigade in the Libyan civil war. Although a lot of the soldiers in Liwaa al-Umma are Syrian, the Libyan fighters in the brigade can't be ignored. If you guys don't want to include Liwaa al-Umma in the infobox, I still think the Libyan fighters should be included in there somehow.---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. EkoGraf (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Liwa al-Umma is made up of more than 6,000 men, 90 per cent of whom are Syrian. The rest are mostly Libyans and other Arabs, including several who live in Ireland . It is not that a lot of them are Syrians, 90 percent are Syrians. Plus, Irish Times article states this We’re here to facilitate and train civilian rebels in Syria and to add it, Libyan flag is flag of state. Mahdi al-Harati does not hold any official position within the government, it is just another foreigner in this civil war. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, how about we add "Libyan volunteers" under military support for the opposition, without the flag?---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

We already have that covered by Mujahideen. Although I believe that "foreign fighters" would be much more suitable. Libyans are just one nationality fighting them. Two Dutch reporters were taken hostage by what they described as Pakistanis (those guys are everywhere!), Bangladeshi and Chechnyans. There are Lebanese from Bekka valley, sources say there are hundreds of them there. There are Iraqis, there are Kurds from Peshmerga, there are Iranians, there are Hezzies. You can´t have one group without all others. Let´s rename those Mujahideen to foreign fighters and be done with it. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue with that is that the Libyan fighters are helping the FSA, not the Mujahideen. Putting the Mujahideen and Libyan fighters together is very misleading. I suppose we can change "Libyan volunteers" to "Foreign volunteers" or "Foreign fighters" to include the other nationalities.---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 15:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Re-read what I wrote. I think we should change mujahideen to simple foreign fighters. No put intended. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with EllsworthSK. Tradedia (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, not all volunteers from Libya are Mujahideen. There is not indication that the commander Al-Harati is a Islamist.---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

He is not. So, as I wrote before, we should maybe change Mujahideen to Foreign fighters. Libyan are only one nationality of foreign fighters and frankly, not that noticable one. They´ve had 3 KIAs so far (all Misratans). That is nothing. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely that we'll have enough support to change Mujahideen to Foreign fighters. Mjahideen is a third party in this conflict, not aligning itself with either the government or the FSA. Putting Libyan fighters like Al-Harati and Mujahideen under the same category (Foreign fighters) might be misleading. We don't want people to think that they're working together. As far as I know, Libyans (but not all of them) are the only nationality in Syria not fighting for Jihad. This is why the Libyan fighters are special, which is why I think should be differentiated from other foreign fighters, the vast majority of whom are fighting for sectarian reasons.---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. There are many such. There are expats with foreign citizenship. There are Lebanese who have score to settle with Assad or have family connections (especially from Bekka valley). There are Iraqis from tribes which stretch from al-Anbar province to Deir ez-Zor. Foreign fighter doesn´t automatically means muji. So no, Libyan fighters are not special in any case, there are also not biggest foreign group out there, nor do they heavily participate in combat. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Secular non-Libyan foreign fighters. Interesting. Got any sources to support that? And besides, the Libyan volunteers contain experienced commanders like Al-Harati. That alone deserves special attention. I haven't heard of any secular top commanders from Lebanon or Iraq working in Syria.---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 02:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

First, there is not only zelaotry and secularism. Harati himself is hardly a secular, just as rest of Libyans, but moderate muslim. Second, sources says nothing about Libyans being secular, or rather do not mention their religious ideology at all. In fact this article mentions that many Libyan volunteers joins Ahrar al-Sham brigades which are not the friendliest bunch . Third, Harati may be prominent, but I don´t see why he should be more prominent than Iraqi jihadists who have years of experience fighting against coalition forces in al-Anbar province. With all due respect to Harati, Tripoli brigade became prominent in battle of Zawiya and Tripoli. Before that, they were neglected as neglected gets. Till battle of Badr and Tiji, only few knew about them and they did not participate in most of the battles. EllsworthSK (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, some sources supporting non-Islamist, non-Libyan foreign fighters would be helpful. Having the infobox include both Libyan volunteers and Mujihadeen doesn't make the Libyans more special. We can include the Iraqi Jihadist commanders in the infobox, I don't see a problem with that. So far, there isn't any listed there right now. It's not a good idea to change Muji to foreign fighters because it's important to differentiate the Jihadists from the non-radical. Mujihadeen is a special party in the conflict because they're fighting for sectarian reasons, and are not officially working with the FSA. By putting Libyan volunteers under the military support for the opposition, it becomes clear which side Al-Harati and other non-radical Libyans are supporting. They are supporting the FSA, not the Jihadists. Since the FSA and Mujihadeen are different parties in the conflict, it's important to indicate who supports what side. Therefore Mujihadeen should not be changed to foreign fighters.---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) Futuretrillionaire 14:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In the same manner it would be helpful to source your claim that Libyans are seculars. Also here you have sources which talks about 30 Lebanese being part of FSA and battling in Qusayr under FSA banner . Also Liwa brigade is NOT part of FSA, it is independent. Muji do not fight with FSA either since they have bigger problems than that, neither do Kurds. FSA itself is anything but unified group, having more than 100 brigades who operate freely on each other. So again, what makes Libyans more special than Lebanese? One man who himself describes as trainer? Do you have source which would says how many Libyans are there? Because neither gives any number, it says that 10 percent of Liwa brigade are foreigners, but not Libyans. I do not see any significance here, we already know that foreign fighters operate in Syria and we have even listed their number in the strength part of infobox, sources already mentions that their numbers are marginal, we do not have any number or any source which would say that number of Libyans is significant, we also do not have any source which would talk about their religious views, as they are hardly unified group. So why? EllsworthSK (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit help

I know this isn't normal, but I'm wondering if any of you could take a look at the 8th of March Revolution?? The article is about how the Syrian regional branch of the Ba'ath Party seized power in Syria in 1963.. However, its a DYK and GA nominee and might need a copyedit.. Would any of you be interested? --TIAYN (talk) 09:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

First image

The first image is of a gathering of people with the sentence "The Situation of The Civil War in Syria By July 29,2012". The sentence makes it look like an image of Syria with the current situation of land control should be there instead. Acoma Magic (talk) 00:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

People are debating whether or not to put a map there.---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think there should be a map, but unlike Libya there are no real clear frontlines and control of areas shifts constantly making drawing up an accurate map difficult.

Syrian Civil War

I suggest to rename the title of the article to "Syrian Civil War". There were no other civil wars in Syria. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see the requested move discussion a little ways up. -- Luke (Talk) 21:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hezbollah and Iran on the ground

Yet again I have to bring attention to the fact that we have Iranian and Hezbollah casualties in the infobox based on very shaky sources. Just because someone claimed to somehow be able to identify dead fighters as Iranian or Lebanese, which is highly unlikely, just making such a claim and having some sources mention it does not make it strong enough for the infobox, and it hasn't even been repeated in the media since. It can be mentioned in the article body that it has been claimed, but having it in the infobox gives it undue weight. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, Iranian military commanders in the infobox are not even based on any sources and their inclusion seems rather arbitrary. --37.244.176.237 (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point, placing them there as "commanders" is pure original research, and they deny any involvement on the ground, unlike the foreign Jihadis fighting for the FSA, who are practically boasting of it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I7laseral reverted my edit with the summary "Unlike the FSA, Hez and Quds are highly organized, and nothing happens without those leader's consent." If that isn't OR, what is? And this is assuming those fighters were even there in the first place! FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I7laseral, I suggest you read the sources you state support your claims. They don't. Quit the POV pushing original research, please. FunkMonk (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, I see you've found a source quoting An-Nahar as saying Hezbollah fighters are present. I won't revert it, but I'll point out here that An-Nahar is a notoriously anti-Syrian (pro-Kataeb) paper. We don't quote al-Manar here either, do we? FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Al-Manar is party TV, even on list of banned organizations which supports terrorism by US State Department. However, we do quote al-Akhbar which is notoriously pro-M8 and thus pro-Syrian. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Add United States to military support to opposition forces?

It was announced yesterday that Barack Obama secretly authorized military support for the Syrian rebels. It has been reported by CNN, Reuters, NY Daily News, and more. Does anybody object to add the United States to military supporters of the opposition forces, along with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar? -- Luke (Talk) 12:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You would have to create a sub-header like supplies and logistical support in order to include the US, because what the CIA is doing in Syria stops short of actual military support. But then you might as well add 'NATO' instead of 'USA', as most NATO countries are providing the rebels with supplies in one form or another. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

True, the articles said the U.S. government set aside $25 million for "non-lethal" support to the opposition forces. -- Luke (Talk) 13:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Non-lethal military equipment is still military equipment. When was military equipment defined solely as lethal? No separate header is needed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

They didn't say military equipment. Non-lethal supports refers to humanitarian aid (medical supplies) and communications (radios). Sopher99 (talk) 14:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If "communications" is to include any of this, then it's military. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

But it doesn't include any of that. Besides, why would they give missile guidance and gps weapon systems without the missiles and without the weapons? Sopher99 (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are providing the weapons themselves. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Minimally, yes. But thats why we have them in the infobox, not the USA, which is not providing military equipment or military perks. Sopher99 (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So American satellite images, GPS information, and similar that will guide these weapons are not military aid? FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

None of that the USA is giving. "providing only nonlethal assistance, such as communications equipment." Obama's support is less than meets the eye. Sopher99 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

USA should be added in a new instigator section of the infobox because we know who is leading the so called "friends of syria" conferences (Hillary Clinton) and also israel should be added as well . Baboon43 (talk) 15:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That is totally wack. As we just stated neither country is providing military support. The friends of Syria don't support the opposition with anything but rhetoric. Sopher99 (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"Parties in the conflict"

This section almost only includes opposition groups. Either it should be renamed accordingly, or the government and pro-government groups (apart from "Shabiha") should be listed as well. FunkMonk (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. Sopher99 (talk) 15:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Is having "Alleged" in infobox really necessay?

Is having "Alleged" for half of the parties really necessary? It's cluttering the infobox. If there's reliable sources saying that the party is involved in the conflict, is that not good enough?---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It was a tit for tat addition by Sopher99 after I added "alleged" to Hezbollah and Iran for the reasons stated above. Reliable sources are not enough if the party itself denies involvement. This is not true for Turkey, however, so alleged should be removed in that instance. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

If they have the "alleged label next to them I think they should be removed from the info box. Cover alleged belligrents somewhere else. Info box too big as it is. XantheTerra (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Combatants in sidebox

Looking at the page's edit history and this talk page, I thought we might want to get straight what the requirements for a party being included in the combatants list in the sidebox. Two issues:

1) Are parties which supply only arms and/or funds listed? Unless I'm mistaken, supplying the rebels seems to be the justification for both Qatar and Saudi Arabia being in the box, yet why doesn't it apply to Russia, which supplies the government with arms? If funds are counted, shouldn't this also apply to the US, which supplies the rebels with "nonlethal aid", i.e. funds?

Russia sells weapons to assad. I don't think funding is counted anymore. Just weapons, as funding is too vague. Sopher99 (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

2) Do "alleged" actors count? If we consistently allow this, the list could get much longer, and we'd probably have to establish standards for being "alleged within reason".--Yalens (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

According to taalverbateer Hezbollah and Iran has to be "alleged" because they don't admit their presence/role in Syria. So I applied this logic to the other. Sopher99 (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Belligerents

USA also supports openly Opposition Forces; giving them money, weapons and providing logistical support from the CIA. There's also Blackwater in Syria on the Opposition Forces side fro mthe order of CIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.144.185 (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

See the discussion four ones up. The USA is not providing weapons. Only non lethal assistance. There is no black water in Syria. Sopher99 (talk) 07:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I am for the inclusion of the United States. They provide money, help, intelligence and help opening roads for providing weapons. This is a military help. --Maldonado91 (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No - they are not giving military support directly. (providing money is not military support, and military intelligence we don't count because many countries share military intelligence with Syria.) Sopher99 (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding people. Giving millions of dollars to the terrorists is a support. Above giving the money, USA send CIA agents to Syria to back up the "FSA". USA do support the terrorists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.144.185 (talk) 15:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The only terrorists are assad and his shabiha, everyone knows that. Sopher99 (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from those kinds of comments, they can exclude you from any future debates due to a non-neutral pov, and I'm talking to the both of you. EkoGraf (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I was against including the US before because they were still only assessing wether to aid the rebels. But now it has been revealed that Obama signed a directive pledging aid for the rebels. So, like the anonymous user and Maldonado91, I am also for including the US. EkoGraf (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

But its non lethal aid. Sopher99 (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

So? Turkey provides non-lethal aid in the form of logistics but we still count them. And the money provided is being used to buy weapons. EkoGraf (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so than I guess adding Russia shan´t be a problem. Russia just recently signed a contract which will ship oil to the Syria, which is running low on that and is hampering their military logistics. Or Mi-24s helicopters, or ships full of ammo and such and such. If you want to go down this road, than it should go all the way. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Big difference between legal contracts (like Russia's) and illegal dealings (like the US, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia). EkoGraf (talk) 08:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Illegal dealings according to what part of international law? It is one and the same, just support which Russia gives to government is thousand times anything that United States provided. Hell, even Ban Ki-Mon called this proxy war. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The rebels are an illegal organisation (working outside the rule of law of the Republic of Syria) thus anybody dealing with them is engaging in illegal dealings. And also if you are involving international law in this discussion, why is it than that financial and arms support for rebels in Iraq was considered to be illegal but, according to you, support for the rebels in Syria is not illegal? I guess that has to do with that old saying One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Assad's government is still the Syrian government which is represented in the United Nations, until that changes they are the legal government of Syria. EkoGraf (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No one has to give a damn about laws and regulations of Syria, in case of international dealings like contracts et cetera we are talking about international law. That stipulates no such thing. And about the quote - yeah, true. I don´t see however what has it to do with topic at hand. Also, if we talk about Iraq, Al Queda was on list of terrorist organizations by United Nations so that´s why. FSA is nowhere to be seen on that list. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Al-Qaeda I was talking about Iraqi rebels in general, like the Mahdi Army which is not on a terrorist watch list and even has its own party in the Iraqi parliament now but was considered a terrorist group by the US military during the war. So what I can ascertain from what you are saying is that international dealings can be made with rebel movements if the groups are pro-Western but not with governments that are anti-Western (Syrian government)? And by saying that No one has to give a damn about laws and regulations of Syria you are in fact saying that anyone can meddle in the internal affairs of a country and destroy its rule of law (which is by the way a violation of the statutes of the UN on itself, and thus violation of international law). Also, per that opinion, nobody should give a damn for example about the laws and regulations of the UK and should maybe send arms and money to the IRA? In any case we should stop this discussion because it has no point and goes into an area of our personal feelings and points of view which are irrelevant on Misplaced Pages. Let's get back to improving the article. Seems there is a debate on the US and CIA at the moment downstairs. EkoGraf (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No, that is why no sanctions were placed on Iran for supporting Mahdis army or Special Groups by weapons and finances. Another point - we do not have Iran in Iraq war infobox as military support of shias insurgent groups. And also we do not have Libya in infobox in The Troubles article. And no, that is why international law exists, it does not stipulate to whom it may or may not arms be sold, morever these supplements to FSA were made on Turkish territories, ie territory which falls under juridically of Turkey, not Syria. Those are realities of today's world, you and me both may not like it but it is so. So you have to choose how you look at it. First, legally, in which case it is not illegal otherwise Saudi Arabia and Qatar, both countries which admit of financing and sending arms to several FSA brigades are not sued before international court or second, morally from where supplying arms and finances to one side of the conflict is as bad as supplying it to the other one, fuelling the flames of war. So what you ascertain is completely other thing than I wrote. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Also I do not see anything wrong with discussing such issues, it needs to be in order to make our differences known. That debate was split in the two, I do not know why. If, however, we reached the point where our different opinions on the subject are too far away and we are in deadlock I can also ask for third party WP:M. Just say if you agree. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with what? For what do we need a third party? We were only talking about the legality of it all hehe. Chill bro! :D It was like a lively political discussion. :) Add who you want, remove who you want, I have come to think this discussion by the 5 or 6 of us how many there are on the support category in the infobox is becoming a broken record over the last few months. So in the future discussions I will have to think if I am going to be part of them because I have become exhausted and this heat is killing me its almost 40 Celsius over here. :P EkoGraf (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo Liberation Army in Syria

According an interview of a Syrian senior official (Assad) transmitted by Abkhazian News Agency Anna, former members of Kosovo Liberation Army are fighting in Syria with Syrian opposition. He said that the Syrian Army of Assad killed 400 rebels in Syria, including Kosovan, Libyan, Saudis, Somalian etc. Syrian official said that all Kosovan have been member of Kosovo Liberation Army. Media in Albania & Kosovo published this news.

Kosovo recognised the Syrian National Council SNC as only representative of the Syrian people. The collaboration between Kosovo and Syrian opposition is not only political but also military. Russia accused Pristina time ago that Kosovo is trained Syrian rebels. In April 2012 a Syrian opposition delegation (Syrian National Council) led by Ammar Abdulhamid visited Pristina and promised to recognise Kosovo immediately after the triumph of democracy in Syria. The visit of Syrian opposition delegation was the first step of collaboration between SNC and Pristina.Irvi Hyka (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo's involvement proves nato is behind this because kosovo is a well known nato puppet..they may have told kosovo to join the conflict in exchange for international recognition of the republic of kosovo at the U.N. Baboon43 (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh no - Kosovo has been through intense artillery shelling and massacre, and is showing sympathy by training rebels. It would by hypocritical to not offer its support to the FSA when they themselves suffered under Milosevic's forces. Sopher99 (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Unnamed Syrian government source (which is by that very definition unreliable), quoted by other unreliable source - ANNA - (we had this discussion few months ago on RSN where it was deemed as a blog) is not by any chance usable. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

military analysis

There might be some useful tidbits in this fascinating new piece about helicopters and other heavy arms. --Nstrauss (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Obama signs order supporting Syria's rebels, reports say.

Where should this information go in the article? I don't want to disrupt the article's format. Thanks. ComputerJA (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Check under support for the opposition - I think they already put it there though. Sopher99 (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Include USA and/or CIA

Why is CIA and/or USA not included in the information box? It have been well established among sourcesthat they are actively supporting the rebels by military and intelligence means (weapons, intelligence sharing etc). Since Obama, the president of he United States have authorized this operation, this is turn means that the US government is taking an active part supporting the rebels by military and intelligence means.

"A small number of C.I.A. officers are operating secretly in southern Turkey, helping allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive arms to fight the Syrian government, according to American officials and Arab intelligence officers."

"The CIA and other US agencies have been given carte blanche to supply intelligence information to the Syrian opposition, sources in the US have disclosed."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2182427/Obama-authorizes-secret-support-Syrian-rebels.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9445649/CIA-authorised-to-offer-intelligence-support-to-Syrian-rebels.html

Someone, please include the USA and/or CIA in the information box. I am actually surprised they are not included at all!

There are more sources on the net - I just don't want to publish them all here.87.96.185.238 (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok now we have 5 ongoing discussions about this. The USA is providing non lethal assistance only. Many other countries, such as Belarus and Russia supply Assad with military intelligence. By that logic we would have to include them to - but we shouldn't count military intelligence as military support. Sopher99 (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, I changed the infobox to say Armaments from. Sopher99 (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

First - The CIA is providing means of directing weapons' aid to the rebels (read decides who gets the armaments in order to use them against Syrian institutions. That equals as providing armaments).

Second - The Syrian army is a legal organisation governed by the Syrian government. How it aquires its weapon is not of interest in this discussion as it is a legal organisation; just like any other country in the world it will use force to crush any attempt to overthrow its regime, the Syrian nation is no exception to this very simple logic.

The Free Syrian Army on the other hand is an organisation which have no legal rights in the said country, is attempting to overthrow the current regime in Syria by the help of Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and some western countries. Would you define "directing weapons to rebels" as "non-lethal aid"?

With all due respect, the CIA should nevertheless be included in the infobox. 87.96.185.238 (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

1 - We don't mention the cia, we mention the USA , this was a direct order form obama ( who is not a member of the CIA).

2 - directing weapons is not providing weapons. You have to provide the weapons to provide weapons, not just say "ooh this guy looks more deserving than that guy". Sopher99 (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I was against including the US before because they were still only assessing wether to aid the rebels. But now it has been revealed that Obama signed a directive pledging aid for the rebels. So I am also for including the US. EkoGraf (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah - humanitarian aid (non lethal) not military support. Sopher99 (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian: Obama signs order supporting Syria's rebels. And regarding your last comment, Sopher99, Syrians are living under Bashar Al-Assad and are happy; Muslims, Christians and Atheists living together. It is terrorists like you having mercenaries from Libya, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia (proof >) , fighting against the Syrian Government. You are also backed up by the Al-Qaeda . YOU are a terrorist who want to support wahabbit / salafist Islamic extremist rule over Syria. Syria does not want to be an Islamic state. We don't want this, we don't want sharia, stop spreading lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.144.185 (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh- no. Assad is best friends with Hezbollah (a terrorist organization) and Iran (a self declared extremist theocracy). From March 2011 - Dec 2011 this was not a mutually violent conflict, and there were only protests. Now the Free Syrian army, made up of defectors, such as riad assad and Mustafa Sheikh, have established themselves to fight back against this child killing regime which has killed thousands of protesters, and arrested and tortured tens of thousands. Sure there are some foreign fighters who have come to help the Syrian people (unlike the international community) and I welcome them. The more the better. Sopher99 (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Bashar Assad uncle, Rifaat Assad (brother of Hafez assad) and Syria's vice president from 1984-2005 Abdul Khaddam both confirm this is a popular revolution. The UN and the Arab League have both confirmed Assad launched a brutal crackdown on protests, which lead to a popular rebellion.

Even the Palestinian Authority voted for arab league sanctions on Syria. Even Hamas voiced its support for the Syrian revolution, and many Hamas have even joined the fight against assad. (Hamas by the way is 100% funded by the Syrian government - well at least until recently). Amnesty international and Human Rights Watch, both which have condemned Israel's Gaza strikes, have condemned the Syrian government's totalitarian brutality as well. Sopher99 (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Your geolocate service shows that you are living in Brooklyn New york right now, so I wouldn't be using the term "we". Sopher99 (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Let's stick with what reliable sources say. I'm sure we can find a good balance for both sides. But I'm sure the "terrorist" appellation given to Obama's administration is WP:UNDUE. Best, ComputerJA (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually some of the terrorist states and organizations are USA, Israel, Qatar, Saudi, Amnesty international, UN, Arab league, Hamas, Muslim brotherhood etc. This operation is not about toppling the regime but to keep syria in chaos for undisclosed reasons because petty rebels can not overthrow assad. Baboon43 (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

But the chaos threatens Israel - so I don't see the point in that.

Rebels are outnumbered 200k to 50k. They also don't have heavy weapons or an airforce like the Syrian government does. They are disorganized, unlike the Syrian army, and they hardly have any weapons themselves. Of course it would be tremendously difficult for the rebels to overthrow the Syrian army. But they have been progressing none the less. Sopher99 (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Israel is not threatened in anyway unless it goes on the offensive so i dont know what you mean, also keep in mind Israel has a nuclear arsenal..The syrian government has assisted hezbollah previously which is why Israel is in the perfect position because it always wanted a regime change in Syria. The rebels represent a radical sunni group much like Hamas which Israel loves so much. more terrorists means sympathy for Israel in the international community and they will get their terrorists even if they have to fund them. Baboon43 (talk) 17:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Israel is threatened by Chaos in Syria. For so long Bashar has kept the piece with israel - never tried to take back Golan, never made any moves against Israel. But if Muslim brotherhood was to take any sort of power, it could be critically troubling for Israel. Chemical weapons could fall to hezbollah hands - and Insurgents could star penetrating Israel. Rebels are primarily defectors from Assad's army anyway. So no real terrorist presence. Bashar Assad is israel's most prescious enemy. The last enemy they want fallen. Peace with Israel is assured with assad. Sopher99 (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Israel's existence in the middle east's sole purpose is to agitate the region because they simply can not survive under total peace..unless israel dominates the region their influence in the middle east will dwindle..so any form of democracy in the arab states is a threat to israel. Israel had attacked Syria a few years ago see Operation Orchard. The muslim brotherhood on the other hand has done nothing but cause conflicts with israel which begs the question who really controls the brotherhood. im wondering why mainstream media doesnt pick up this story Baboon43 (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If Israel only survives under peace then why did Bashar keep the peace for so long. assad's forces shot down a turkish plane over the Mediterranean, yet allowed Israel to bomb their nuclear sites for hours uninterrupted. Also interesting how democracy hurts Israel, yet Syria is a totalitarian nightmare state. (perhaps assad and netanyahu are closer than you think). Regardless, if you have anything more to say to me, discuss it on my talkpage, this article's talkpage is not a forum.Sopher99 (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Why no mention at all of US support? Support does not have to take a purely military form. Military support is just one category of support. Another category, for example, is diplomatic, as seen clearly from the Russians and Chinese at the UNSC. Or take the non-military support for Assad by Venezuela with its fuel shipments. As it is, the blanking of support from the US, UK and others means the article completely masks an important facet of the civil war: there is a wider, international agenda. Syria is rightly called a "fault line" of the Middle East. A crucial Iranian ally, crucial to Hizballah, and crucial, therefore, to the US, Israel and their Allies. The idea that we in the West are neutral players helping the "good guys" in this is a joke. Why not even a murmur of disapproval about the crackdown by our good friends in Saudi Arabia? This showdown with Assad has wider implications than simply overthrowing a detested tyrant, so this article ought to reflect that. Hairgelmare (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)sock comment

Just add United states in economic and military support in the infobox and put into brackets beside it non-lethal military aid. And provide source. That's it. Compromise. Confirmed by multiple sources by now they are helping the FSA with military communications equipment and some form of logistics. EkoGraf (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd really love a summary of the support, bit of explanation behind it too, as was here about a month ago. Also we (the UK) are supplying another £5m of equipment. And in an NYRB blog: "In sixteen months, the situation in Syria has mutated from an uprising in a few outlying cities into a full-scale civil war. Now it has mutated again into a proxy war between the Great Powers. The Russians have been arming the regime—it was a Russian air defense system that shot down the Turkish F-4 Phantom jet—and the West is now arming the rebels. The Saudis and the Gulf states are funneling weapons straight to the Sunnis, especially to anyone with Salafist and Islamic radical credentials. Arms are trickling across the borders with Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, and Jordan; the CIA has been given the difficult task of ensuring that at least the Turkish weapons are channeled to the right people and away from al-Qaeda affiliates." Hairgelmare (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)sock comment

Don't rename

Please, don't rename the article, Syria is in a Civil War --Danrolo 00:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The move discussion a few sections up is about removing the date (2011-present) and/or to capitalize the title. It's not about moving the article to something other than "civil war". -- Luke (Talk) 01:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahrar al-Sham and Sukur al-Sham

Both Ahrar al-Sham and Sukur al-Sham are fighting, this is sourced. And both are newly created groupd that did not exist before this war. Your explanation as "they don't fight under their color" is both comical and unsourced. Stop using every strategy to hide the groups from public eyes. Misplaced Pages is bas on the sources, not on your personnal opinions, once again. It is unbelievable how you place yourself above the sources --DanielUmel (talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The user EllsworthSK is also teaming up with L7laseral to avoid the rules. Can someone revert his last unacceptable deletions of sourced content please? --DanielUmel (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Well for starters, there are dozens, if not hundreds of Islamist, Secular, Tribal, and Revolutionary based brigades and organizations in Syria. We only list the main ones. The rest is covered by puting Syrian opposition or by putting Muhajideen. I7laseral (talk) 14:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Still, they should be put on the list if they are notable, never mind if they are small as a group or not. EkoGraf (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The infobox exists to highlight the more important aspects of the conflict. It should not be the place for an exhaustive list. We don’t list all the brigades in the free Syrian army, do we? Tradedia (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No, we don't include brigades, we include notable beligerents. EkoGraf (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

According to Help:Infobox: “The infobox quickly summarizes important points in an easy-to-read format.” It is not for every notable component. Besides, many of the brigades of FSA are larger and more impactful than the Mujahideen groups listed, and are therefore more notable. Tradedia (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

They are not notable. If more sources discuss them as sepearate important groups maybe you have stronger case — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crystalfile (talk • contribs) 22:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources discussing plenty of brigades that are a lot more important and notable than the Mujahideen groups listed. Tradedia (talk) 23:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Boohoo. I listed source twice for your own satisfaction, yet you never bothered to read it. So again, this and specifically this part Elements of the Lebanese group Fatah al-Islam and the multinational Abdullah Azzam Brigades have also crossed into Syria; they are not fighting under those banners, however, but simply as "mujahedin.". We already have Mujahedin listed as combatants. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Since when Arhar al-Sham and Sukur al-Sham are "the multi national Abdullah Azzam Brigades", especially when I provide a source stating that theyr are homegrown jihadists groups? You don't even read your own sources as it is merely an excuse for trying to pass your personal opinions.

So now EllsworthSK ego has decided to remove two new islamists militia under the prextex that they are an old foreign group? And without any source at that? And you think you will get away with such poor quality of edits? --DanielUmel (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahrar al Sham are also notable:

"“The Salafis have their own support, and it’s strong,” says Abu Trad, referring to the Ahrar al-Sham brigades comprised of adherents to a more orthodox form of Sunni Islam. “I don’t blame them, but we started before them, we spilled our blood, I think it’s a grave injustice to us that they have stronger support.”

"Indicators stress that the actual number of these foreign groups is likely to be higher which are "especially active in detonating roadside bombs against regime targets," among them are Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham groups, who have acknowledged that they adhere to the al-Qaeda views."

Here a proof that they were the strongest rebel group near Al Haffa

"“The army only controls the area directly under their tanks,” said Mohanned al Masri, a member of Ahrar al Sham, one of the groups based in the Al Ghab Plain and the primary supplier of rebel fighters at Al Haffa. “Here, the regime has already fallen.”"

And here it says that most foreigh fighters are joining this group

"According to Reuters, in the last few months a steady flow of Arab men from several countries have joined the FSA forces, and most have headed to the province of Hama in central Syria where a few jihadists, or Muslim religious fighters, with experience in Afghanistan have been giving them rudimentary training in handling assault rifles and guerrilla warfare.

Reuters has also learned that these Arab men were planning to join a unit called the Ahrar al-Sham brigades, adding that most of the foreign fighters had joined this unit. “It is our duty to go to the great Bilad al-Sham (Syria) and defend it against the Alawite tyrants massacring its people,” said Bin Shamar, 22, who spoke to Reuters in Reyhanlı, a Turkish town whose Arab inhabitants have historic links with Syria."

And

"A young man, 'Mohammed' drove with the Telegraph through the Idlib countryside in his clapped out white Skoda, the steering wheel replaced by one from a racing car. His Kalashnikov lay in-between his legs. Dried blood from comrades who had been wounded or killed in fighting was streaked on the back seat, and religious verses played loudly through the cassette player.

"I was in al Qaeda and I love al Qaeda. Now I am with Ahrar al Sham group because they are stronger in Syria," he said. "I am supporting al-Qaeda's ideology because of America and Britain's actions. America does what she wants, kills as she wishes, robs as she wishes, and attacks innocents as she wishes. All she does is fight Muslims."

Clearly notable --DanielUmel (talk) 23:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that. I admit that I was wrong with Ahrar al-Sham brigade, they are not part of FSA. However, point with Fatah al-Islam still stands. Also one interesting point, since I re-read several articles about them, I found myself on the same article that was used as pretext for including AQI in the infobox. Turns out that that AQ guy, because of whom it was added there, said that he is member of Ahrar al-Sham brigade (telegraph article). So what do? Do you want to include them under AQI or leave it as separate, thus removing AQI? EllsworthSK (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

You are finally admitting that you were wrong on this one? Nice. They have to be included as a separate force, under the Mujahideen, alongside with Al Qaeda and Jabat Nusra. --DanielUmel (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again, the article which we use as a source for AQI (not AQ in general) talks about Ahrar al-Sham, which it says include former AQI operatives who fought in Iraq against coalition. I didn´t notice it back than since I was not aware of Ahrar al-Sham, but given the perspective you can remove AQ and add Ahrar under muji. The NYT source meanwhile talks about al-Nusra front, which is included in the infobox already. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. There are sources talking about the three organizations. All three are operating in Syria and it should be reflected. --DanielUmel (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Care to point out one source which talks about all those three organizations at once? Because NYT is mixing AQ and al-Nusra, calling al-Nusra either part, branch or having very strong ties to AQ (not clear at all). Same goes for telegraph where the muji at question says taht he fought on behalf of AQI against coalition, he loves AQ, he approves of their London and Madrid bombings and now is in Ahrar al-Sham. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The fact that Arhar al Sham are considered stronger than Al Qaida and Nusra, which are among the strongest on the ground, only shows the absolute need of their inclusion in the infobox. --DanielUmel (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not dispute rationale for their addition to the infobox, I dispute sources which talk about them and were misinterpreted in the past for AQ. EllsworthSK (talk) 10:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to point to you one last time that we go by the sources and not your personal analysis of the sources. --DanielUmel (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, this uptight behaviour again. I shouldn´t be surprised, but I guess I am too naive. In both sources group mentioned in a, al-Nusra b, Ahrar al-Sham. Read them. This is exactly same reason why we removed your AQ edit to infobox in Deir ez-Zor article and replaced it by al-Nusra. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

New source about Ahrar al-Sham http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/08/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE8610SH20120808

I have provided countless source about the group, now it has to be included. They are notable as proved by all the sources. --DanielUmel (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahrar al-Sham and Sukur al-Sham are just brigades of Mujahideen. We don’t list separately the brigades of the free syrian army. I should note that many free syrian army brigades are larger and more notable than those of Mujahideen. So listing the brigades of Mujahideen is undue weight. They are included in the heading “Mujahideen”. Tradedia (talk) 01:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

There are no goup called Mujahideen and therefore there are no "brigades of Mujahideen". This is an absolutely ridiculous original search. Thanks for trying but the sourced content about the two completely independant armed group stay. --DanielUmel (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I find it very problematic that the space reserved to “Syrian opposition” in the infobox is smaller than that for “Mujahideen”, eventhought they are a much smaller group. “Syrian opposition” has 3 items, whereas “Mujahideen” has 5 items. This is undue weight and misleading. You can talk about them in the text but not in infobox. Otherwise, I don’t see why I wouldn’t start adding the farouq battalion, Hamzah Al-Khateeb battalion, the touhid brigade, Salaheddine Al-Ayoubi battalion, Sham Falcons, Harmoush battalion, etc… These are larger and more notable than Ahrar al-Sham… Not to mention Regional Military Councils… Tradedia (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In accordance

In accordance with all other military infoboxes on all other war articles, I 'm removing the military support sections from both sides. You can list weapon sources and aid in the specific section for those topics. Check every war article from World war I to Vietnam war to Libyan civil war and every civil war that occurred in between. No military support in those infoboxes. No need for it here. Zenithfel (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

To understand the military equation fully, you have to list all the supporting sides. In a civil war, the foreign support brought to one side is often one of the major point. Without ammunitions flowing from Qatar , Turkey (wich harbors and actively help the rebels in all possible manners), Saudi Arabia and United States, the rebellion would probably have been completely defeated now. And Iran is providing ressources, cash and weapons to Syria as well. The addition in the infobox of them, clearly mentionned as economic and military support gives immediate and valuable information to the reader. --Maldonado91 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

But as Zen said, we mention it in the subsequent sections. Having them in the infobox makes it seem like they only get supplies from thos countries. Furthermore they hardly get any weapons from outside countries. Most weapons come from defectors/bought on the black market. Also I have checked the other military conflict articles, they don't have military support in the infobox. Sopher99 (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Syrian civil war is very different from other wars in the past. In today's globalized world, wars often involve military support from other countries. Many war articles in Misplaced Pages are about pre-modern wars, in which foreign involvement in wars was rare, so don't use other war articles as a model for this one. ---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

But none of modern war articles have military support in the infobox. Well except for vietnam war. Sopher99 (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me but you are wrong Sopher. You have examples of other war articles like the Angolan and Afghan civil wars (soviet period) where there are countries who provided arms and money to a specific side being listed in the infobox. I'm sure if I look a bit more I will also find others. So on this point I agree with Maldonado91 and Futuretrillionaire. EkoGraf (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Muslim brotherhood involved

The muslim brotherhood is also fighting the syrian regime so it should be added in the infobox Baboon43 (talk) 18:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The muslim brotherhood is the Syrian national council. They are already listed. Also we already put Ali Bayonouni (MB leader) as a commander. Sopher99 (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The Muslim Brotherhood is in the SNC, a MB militia is not representative of the SNC overall. FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

References supporting Iran/Hizbullah losses

Such claims should be included only when supported by major news outlets. Digging deep into the web in order to find something to prove them is not a good practice. Article by Ya Libnan isn't reliable enough because the website is run by the March 14 alliance, which is very openly opposed to Syria and Hizbulla. The Business Insider article is based on a Wikileak which is described as unverified. Misplaced Pages is not a place for such speculations.--Rafy talk 12:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've brought this up three or four times in the past already, but there were no responses. So they should probably be removed, if no one can even argue for their inclusion. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal regarding cities under rebel control.

I remember that for each city that was under Libyan rebel control, we used the National Transitional Council flag in the rebel cities infobox templates, because the argument was that the NTC was internationally recognized as a government in exile. I was making such edits to Azaz, Al-Bab, and Afrin, Syria before they were reverted under the concern that this should be discussed because of a matter of sovereignty. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

But is the SNC widely recognised? And do they even have any power on the ground? They don't own the Free Syrian Army, so it would be inaccurate to list the SNC flag. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The SNC is the most recognized of the rebel organizations in Syria, and plus the FSA is kinda aligned with the SNC as a paramilitary organization. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

"Kinda aligned" is not enough for giving SNC credit for FSA gains. Also, some of the rebel groups don't care about Syria as a state (they wans a caliphate) and wave Islamist flags instead. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

The areas out of government control are governed by LCCs . In that manner, they are the real civic opposition force on the ground, not SNC. And NTC was harldy ogvernment-in-exile when they were based in Benghazi. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If they don’t let you change the flags in the rebel cities infobox, you can always look at the article Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War where opposition, Kurdish, and gov flags reflect the control status of cities and towns. Tradedia (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Foreign fighters killed

Seems like that part has not bee updated for a while, 38?! If anyone can access it, this article may have more updated info on the matter: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/as-al-qaida-s-power-in-syria-rises-israeli-officials-ready-for-possible-attack.premium-1.455938 FunkMonk (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Haaretz may not be state controlled, but it is a very, very unreliable media. Don't let that one article fool you, it is very anti-assad media. They are little better than al dekba (well actually alot better, but still very unreliable). Sopher99 (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Eh, most sources used in this article are western, thus anti-Assad, what's your point? FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I had uptated the number to 58 but Ekograf removed it. --DanielUmel (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Because you didn't add a source with your update. EkoGraf (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

But you knew the source since they were in the Damascus and Homs page and you even posted one of them. --DanielUmel (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the edit you made was still unsourced. I can't add a source after you each time you make an update. You need to add sources yourself. EkoGraf (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move: Syrian Civil War to Syrian civil war

The request to rename this article to Syrian civil war has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Syrian Civil War → Syrian civil war – This is ridiculous. I proposed removing the capitals weeks ago (here), then an editor made an official move request out of it (here) with the added request of removing the 2011–present bit. In the end, the administrator only carried out the removal of the date but left the incorrect capitals as they were.
"Syrian civil war" is not a proper noun and thus should not be capitalized per WP:CAPS. Mike Selinker explained the reasons behind this quite clearly here. TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Support per nom. Misplaced Pages is the only site where I've seen "Syrian Civil War" used as a proper noun. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Support Capitalisation seems unneccesary. kspence92 (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose, it looks better. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Support. Obviously. Leave the Proper Nouning to Reliable Sources. "It looks better" is actually not a rationale. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not see the difference between the two versions. The "civil war" being used in Libya, however the English Misplaced Pages used the term with capitalisation for the English Civil War. If Syrian Civil War will be renamed to "civil war", we should change too at the English Civil War (to "English civil war" or "The Civil War"). --Norden1990 (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

English Civil War is a proper noun because it's an established term of periodization by historians who over time by general consensus agreed that the conflict has a proper name. This war is still new and ongoing and has not yet established itself with a proper name. So we name it descriptively, a "civil war", and not with a proper name, "Civil War". Usually someone will write an authoritative book or paper and that will set the precedent for future authors and over time the name sticks as a proper noun once it comes into common usage. As yet there is no real established consensus, but there will be, every war eventually does. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

In English Misplaced Pages, most of articles use capitalisation: see Greek Civil War or Chinese Civil War etc. It seems that the most recent conflict, the Libyan civil war is an exception... --Norden1990 (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be flying over your head.... other conflicts are capitalised not because editors on Misplaced Pages decided that they should be, but because a majority of quality, reliable sources capitalise them. A few weeks ago this was still an "uprising"; don't pretend that major scholars and the mainstream media are have already reached a uniform consensus to refer to this conflict as the "Syrian Civil War". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutral -If you Google News search "Syrian civil war" (capitalization doesn't matter in searches) you'd find that both "civil war" and "Civil War" are being used. However "civil war" seems to be more common.---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Support agreed with Lothar, appearance has nothing to do with article titles. WP:CAPS specifically says that the only words that are capitalized are proper nouns. "Civil war" is a common noun. -- Luke (Talk) 19:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Support - Not a proper noun (yet). Green Cardamom (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose and comment: If you look at List of civil wars you'll see that the capitalised version is the more commonly used title. General consensus seems to lean to capitalisation. Additionally, this article has been nominated for moving/renaming so many times it's getting very silly. 2.217.121.150 (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Other civil wars are irrelevant. Those that are capitalised on Misplaced Pages are capitalised in the sources. This one isn't (as of yet). Simple, really. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - per common usage. RoyalMate1 23:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Since when have arbitrary Proper Nouns been Common Usage? Don't throw out English Civil War or American Civil War—those have been decided as proper nouns by years of historiography. No such firm source base exists for the name of this conflict. That is the "common usage" that matters. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Support. I haven't seen any reliable sources naming the conflict with a proper noun, so neither should we. --Nstrauss (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Support. I agree, "civil war" is definitely not a proper noun, decapitalize it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warioman86 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Support on the grounds that it has not yet received that as any official name; no other source capitalizes it as such. Perhaps once it's ended, it will be given a name like "Syrian Civil War of 2012", and then we can move it to that name. For now, lowercase it is.  dalahäst  04:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Support. For now, this conflict is just a civil war in Syria. While it's possible that this conflict may eventually become universally called the Syrian Civil War, that likely won't be until after it's resolved, and by then it's possible it will be called something entirely different. For now, it's most accurate to reflect the ongoing nature of the issue with undercase, until the title of the conflict becomes verifiably concrete. Milhisfan (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Support per nom. If it ever becomes a proper noun, the article can be re-moved. Tupsumato (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Support Vast majority of editors support Syrian civil war as opposed to Syrian Civil War, also, it seems the majority of news outlets use Syrian civil war as opposed to the capitalised version. The discussion is therefore irrelevant if both majority of users and majority of news sources do not have a capitalised version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.171.167 (talk) 23:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Support per others. EkoGraf (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

'Giant 'who cares' you guys do realise you're having this massive debate about capitalisation right? It's basically right both ways, so i guess i oppose as there's no reason to chance the status quo. 94.193.234.10 (talk) 10:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you really don't care, why bother with !voting here? Doesn't make much sense. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really seem like a debate to me; consensus seems pretty clear. Zaldax (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Support It isn't a proper noun yet, and it looks rather unwieldy. I would recommend adding the date to the title as well (i.e. 2011-2012 Syrian civil war). Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose If Misplaced Pages is an encylopedia, it should be done in encyclopaedic style. If one wants to argue it shouldn't because it isn't a proper noun yet, it should still suffice until a proper noun replaces it, if only to be consistant with historical civil wars also listed on Misplaced Pages. And adding a date is also not necessary. There hasn't been another civil war in Syria since the foundation of the modern state (at the very least), so its not like there is an issue of confusion. As for the unwieldiness of the name, even in articles or other publications about historical conflicts they don't always use the full name or the capitalized name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.38.25 (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, other civil wars are capitalised because they are established in the literature as being Proper Nouns. That is the standard here, not "consistency". The most analogous conflict that this is temporally closest to is the Libyan civil war (note lowercase). No consensus has formed in the literature yet as to the name of the conflict, and so consensus here is overwhelmingly in favour of the lowercase. Having this article capitalised is thus "inconsistent". Having a proper noun "until a proper noun replaces it" makes zero sense. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Lothar, I think you have succeeded in making your opinion known. There's no need to argue with every single person who disagrees with you. --Nstrauss (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Making my opinion known is not my intention. I am trying to engage others who voice their opinions into explaining and defending them, rather than just drive-by !voting. This procedure is, after all, supposed to be a move discussion, not just a tally. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Neutral *Shrugs* Both spellings are used in the sources and are both right here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's saying that nobody uses Civil War, just that it isn't a firmly-established name by any standards. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose The whole proper noun issue is a red herring. Names of wars, with very few exceptions, just get capitalized. See Punic Wars, Crimean War, and Bosnian War, for example. There are reliable sources using this capitalization, including The Wall Street Journal, Der Spiegel, and ABC News. "Syrian civil war" is merely a descriptive phrase, and List of civil wars is indeed instructive in its overwhelming preference for capitalization. That some contemporary journalists favor that descriptive phrase is no indication that "Syrian Civil War" isn't the accepted name for this conflict. It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • "Just get" as in "just become ", not "just are". The Punic Wars occurred millennia ago, the Crimean War well over a century ago, and the Bosnian War near up on two decades ago. No, not all names of wars become capitalised: Balochistan conflict, 2008 South Ossetia war, Kivu conflict, Civil war in the Republic of Ingushetia. None of the sources you provide is convincing: WSJ (capitalises all of its titles by default ), Der Spiegel (again, Capitalised Titles are the Default: ), ABC News ( ). The "civil war" classification was only decided this summer, and "uprising" , "revolution" , and "rebellion" are still cropping up. Use of the "descriptive phrase" in the body text is most telling: (ABC news, even!) . "Get" is not the same as "is", and at least waiting for the conflict to wrap up for a name to be settled on makes more sense than leaping to a conclusion in the midst of it all. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

BDD, the sources you cite don't make sense. In all three "Syrian Civil War" is only in the titles of articles, where all words are capitalized. Moreover your ABC link shows that in the bodies of its articles ABC is calling the war the "Syrian civil war" (lowercase). --Nstrauss (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose How is "Syrian Civil War" not a proper noun? "A proper noun is a noun that in its primary application refers to a unique entity." The rational for removing the dates was that there was never another "War" that was "Syrian" and "Civil", so the three words should then refer to the unique identity of the war between Syrians. Naturaly "Civil war" should not have full caps, but the title is "Syrian Civil War". Travürsa (talk) 07:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not a proper noun in that it just isn't. "Syrian civil war" is simply a description of the situation. It's not even the most common description, with numerous sources using terms like "Syrian uprising", "Syrian conflict", "Syrian revolution" etc. History will determine how this conflict will ultimately become known. Until then, "Syrian civil war" is a mere description, not a proper noun. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"It isn't because" is a bad argument. "Civil war in Syria" describes the situation, but the entirety of the "unique entity" is the "Syrian Civil War". And all of those should be capitalized because they refer to a "unique entity": a "unique entity" that goes by many names is still a "unique entity". Travürsa (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This "unique entity" exists primarily in your own head, not in the sources. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Support - Per other support arguments, it isn't really a proper noun (or it shouldn't be) and thus shouldn't be capitalized. It's the same situation as the Libyan civil war. Jeancey (talk) 00:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

About Hijab and Tlass

They were high rankings defectors, but I have not seen any evidence that they are now among the leaders and the commanders of the opposition. They placed themselves in the opposition, no doubt with that, but they have no group, no militia, no party. They don't hold any more their previous titles as they have been dismissed whend they defected.

Therefore, they should not be included among the leader of the opposition until they actually lead something. --DanielUmel (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Riad Hijab should also be removed from the infobox in the governement side, even before the date of his defection.

• He was powerless, so not a commander, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/06/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE8610SH20120806

• He was planning his defection before being named Prime minister, thus he was a treator and not a governement commander http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/syrian-pms-defection-being-planned-months-conjunction-fsa --DanielUmel (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This whole 'he planned his defection before having been appointed' thing seems nonsensical to me. How can one plan to defect from a function they don't even hold yet? I suppose it's a lie meant to appease the rebels so that they don't execute him on the spot for being a former regime collaborator. Furthermore, the claim that the Syrian prime minister is 'powerless' doesn't negate the fact that he was the de jure head of government, and so should be included in the infobox as such. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hijab was minister of agriculture before being appointed as Prime minister, it means that he was thinking about defection already at this point. Hijab never had any military impact, was a double agent before he was prime minister and finally just ran away in exile doing nothing for the governement side military speaking. --DanielUmel (talk) 16:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Re. the 'double agent' thing, see my previous post. As for 'doing nothing for the government's side military speaking': regardless of his actual level of involvement, he was the de jure prime minister and should be included as such. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The sources report that he was already with the opposition when he was appointed. We have to go with the sources. --DanielUmel (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

All defectors until now have been Sunnis, including Hijab, so this is a blow more to secularism than to the regime. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Ironically the vast majority of Shias are twelvers, 75 million to be exact... all living in Iran... a radical theocracy. By the way gaddafi and Saddam were Sunni, so is Mubarak and Bouteflika, the current Jordanian king, and pretty much every secular arab head of state (Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Kuwait, president of Iraq) Sopher99 (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The Two largest Shia Organizations outside of Iran are Hezbollah (a terrorist organization) and the Mahdi army. Both which declare Jihad. I would stop acting like Sunnis are the only ones with radicals amongst their populace. Sopher99 (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

So what's your point in relation to my comment? And no, the Arab monarchies are hardly secular. Those long, unfocused rants are hard to decipher. FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

All prominent government defectors, but certainly not all. And Sopher, Kuwait and Yemen are anything but secular. Anyway, their removal from infobox is something I support. It may very well have its place in the article, I don´t see him being an opposition leader of either civic or military wing. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Certainly not all", so who are these exceptions? Rifaat al Assad? FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you realize that we are talking about hundreds of officials from government beuroctatic aparatus and tens of thousands from security services?

In another development, a first exclusively Christian brigade of the FSA was announced, a move that might itself be seen as potentially divisive

the Kurdish Salahadin brigade

Golan Druse start to turn against Syria's Assad

And as for Kurds, just look at what is happening in Kurdistan. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The government has left Kurdish areas to give Turkey something to think about, the Kurds themselves are still neutral (though some have actively fought the insurgents). As for defectors, there have been a few individual minority members from the army here and there, but none from the government. The Druze are hardly doing anything. FunkMonk (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

This 'he had no real power' argument is getting ridiculous. Following that logic, we would have to remove Muammar al-Gaddafi from the Libyan civil war infobox because per his own jamahiriya philosophy, he held no power in Libya. Hijab was the official, de jure, prime minister of Syria and thus belongs in the infobox without a shred of doubt. Whether or not he really exercised any power is beside the point. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The difference is that Muammar al Gaddafi were holding all power in reality. I don't think we include Queen Elizabeth 2 among the commanders when United Kingdom or Australia are in a conflict. That's my first point. The second point is that, according to all the sources we have, he never was with the Syrian Arab Republic when he was Prime minister and was just waiting to run away.

I know that you are skeptical of that, but we have to go with the sources. --DanielUmel (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Re. your first point: we actually do include the prime ministers of Western countries when they partake in a conflict. Amongst others, David Cameron features in the Libyan civil war infobox.

Re. your second point: all sources say Hijab was the official prime minister of the Syrian Arab Republic for two months. So you're right, we have to go with the sources, and include Hijab. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

In UK the Prime minister has all the powers, in Syria he has none. I wonder wnhy you want so much to include a low profile bureaucrat who never had any decision making in the war, who only served two months and who was a defector in waiting from day one. --DanielUmel (talk) 13:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Because he held, according to Syrian constitution, second highest position within the state, just below the Bashar himself? EllsworthSK (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Whether or not he wielded any real power is beside the point. He was the de jure head of government and therefore has to be included in the infobox. Just like David Cameron is included in the Libyan civil war infobox. By the way, the UK prime minister does not have 'all the powers'. In fact, he has little power, and needs to obtain parliamentary support for almost any measure he wants to pass. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

He was not vice president (also powerless position). The source state that position is powerless and that he was forced in the position and already wanted to defect. He was never leader nor commander. I will remove him. --DanielUmel (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

He still had second highest position. Vice-president is below that. First is president, than PM, than speaker of parliament, than I don´t know. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The Vice President of Syria is merely the person who will become acting President in case of temporary disablement of the President. The Vice President is not the second highest position in the Syrian government; the prime minister is (on paper, at least). - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever his influence, he was the prime minister, the title itself is of course notable. Funny how these people suddenly discover how "murderous" the regime is the moment Qatari money is thrown at them. FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with DanielUmel, no proof that he has taken up a leadership role of any kind in the opposition. If you provide a source which confirms he is a leader, and a notable one, in the opposition, than we can add him. At this point, he has only escape the country and has not taken up a position in the opposition. Verifibility is a postulate of Misplaced Pages. EkoGraf (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ideas for shortening the article

Here are some ideas for shortening the article:

• Summarize sections of “Uprising and civil war”: a lot of the content here deals with events that happened on a single day. What we need are summaries of events.
• New articles for “Non-state parties in the conflict” and “Foreign involvement”: each of these two sections can be summarized in a few paragraphs. The rest of the content can be moved to their own articles. All featured war articles on WP are organized chronologically (background, course of the war, aftermath). Any long further analysis is not necessary for the main page. Summarized ones can be moved to the end.

I hope this helps.---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Cooperation between rebels and Al Qaeda groups?

The following article quote two exemples of profund cooperation between classic rebels groups and Al Qaeda linked Al Nusra. http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2012/08/al_nusrah_front_conducts_joint.php#ixzz22kEQgPB9

First a statement by the group:

"In obedience to the command of Allah, and in support of His religion and to protect the oppressed in the Levant , the soldiers of the Al Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant, in cooperation with the Battalion of the Mujahideen of the Companions , carried out an attack on the police station of Jadida Artouz in the countryside of Damascus, killing all the elements, taking their weapons, and completely destroying the building. That was on the morning of Thursday, 19-7-2012."

Second, a report by a newspaper

"According to Abu Khuder, his men are working closely with the military council that commands the Free Syrian Army brigades in the region. "We meet almost every day," he said. "We have clear instructions from our leadership that if the FSA need our help we should give it. We help them with IEDs and car bombs. Our main talent is in the bombing operations." Abu Khuder's men had a lot of experience in bomb-making from Iraq and elsewhere, he added."

It appears that on the ground there is a level of cooperation that the Turkey based commander do not admit. --DanielUmel (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No - they only discussed a very recent operation in which the islamist al sahaba battalion cooperated with al nursra.

Al nusra is not an alqaeda group, its a standard armed jihadist group. Sopher99 (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The member of the group talks like if he was Al Qaeda. --DanielUmel (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And Tony blair talks like if he was George Bush. Tony Blair is still a member of Great Britain. Sopher99 (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It is hardly an argument. --DanielUmel (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

As I already mentioned on other talkpage, the relation between those two are really shady. Are they allied, affiliated, or even armed wing of AQ in Syria? No source makes it clear. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

See Also

Please add this article to the "See Also" section: Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012) --64.128.27.82 (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

There is in the "See Also" section, the article Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War which contains a link to Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012) and all other battles, clashes, operations, campaigns, etc, articles… Tradedia (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Russia as a supporter

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

-- The Anome (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

As The Anome points out citations are needed to state that russia is supporting the regime in the war. What is needed a a clear and reliable source stating in what consists the alledged support of Russia's. I would like to warn against sources like CNN, Reuters, BBC and Al-Jazeera are all based in countries where government and public opinion opposes the current regime. Chiton (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Tartus, a city where Russians have their base. Like Americans have their bases in Japan, Africa, Ramstein in Germany etc, so Russians have their bases. They sent Russian ships into the Russian base. If they are selling, I repeat, selling, not giving arms to the Syrian government it doesn't mean they are supporting them in the conflict. If it would be so, then any country that has a trade contract with Syria could be listed as their supporter, and that means the whole Asia (except Arab league) and the large majority of Africa and South America. So please... --Wustenfuchs 01:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Filmmaker Killed

I found this story though a forum somewhere.

Should this be mentioned on the Sectarian Part? I feel this is significant, in showing the marked increase of Sectarianism in the fighting. --Lionheart Omega (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at this instead: http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/syrian-rebels-kill-16-civilians FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Iranian commanders in the infobox

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

I've removed them several times. Without sources, they should be removed on sight. FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Why are they still there? --77.237.113.211 (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Because biased editors keep inserting their OR POV. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That sucks. --77.237.113.211 (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I've removed it again. Feel free to revert it if anyone inserts it again. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Lebanese Terrorist

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

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

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

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

United Kingdom supports the rebels, Syrian troops had clashed with Jordanian soldiers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9468578/Syrian-forces-clash-with-Jordanian-soldiers-on-the-border.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19205204 142.197.8.220 (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Syria articles
• High-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• C-Class Arab world articles
• High-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• High-importance sociology articles
• C-Class social movements task force articles
• Social movements task force articles
• C-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class International relations articles
• High-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• C-Class Turkey articles
• High-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages
• C-Class Russia articles
• High-importance Russia articles
• High-importance C-Class Russia articles
• WikiProject Russia articles with no associated task force
• WikiProject Russia articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Requested moves