Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:09, 3 September 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. Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force

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

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.

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)

Free Syrian Army Human rights abuses

It does not seem to mention that the Free Syrian Army has committed torture and terrorist car bombings. Human rights Watch has condemned these. I think the putting "terrorist" in quotes is POV, because the Free Syrian Army uses terrorist tactics. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2017801064_syria21.html

Also, even some protestors have been harassed by the FSA, also of importance. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0416/Syrian-activists-to-rebels-Give-us-our-revolution-back— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.93.30 (talk) 16:17, 18 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)

A country that sends weapons, money or advice to another country engaged in a war shouldn't be considered "belligerent". If so, the list of "Belligerents" will become endless and therefore useless for the reader. I suggest to list just the countries and forces who are fighting the war and set up another list for the supporters.--188.221.181.70 (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The US actually has CIA agents on the ground in the Turkey/Syria border area to coordinate weapons supply to the rebels. That goes a bit further than just 'giving advice'. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:16, 17 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

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) Again, according to Help:Infobox: “The infobox quickly summarizes important points in an easy-to-read format.” It is not for every notable component. Tradedia (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"I find it very pproblematic" Is that a joke? Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia and therefore it does not care about your sensitivity on the number of items. If there are more independant islamist groups, they will have more items. Deal with it. I won't let your deletion of sourced content unchecked.--DanielUmel (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my sensitivity. It has to do with wikipedia’s policy relating to infobox. The islamist groups you added are not independent from al-Qaeda which is already there. The islamist groups are not more numerous than groups of opposition. We chose to summarize it into 3 items. This was our decision. We could have included many more. We could have decided to include Regional Military Councils, major battalions, etc. but we did not, because we are offering a summary. You are being unreasonable trying to put as many elements as possible under “Mujahideen” to push a POV. Tradedia (talk) 23:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It is very surprising to see this one point being reverted and reverted and reverted, even being referred to as "vandalism" rather than just discuss it here. This certainly amounts to edit-warring, and I highly advise that this behavior stop. Here, here, here, here, and here are just a few examples in recent days. --Activism1234 19:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I can do nothing against the bad faith of Trededia. There is nothing left to say to him. When he revert a completely sourced addition of independant group who are fighting the syrian governement only because he do not want more item in one category than in one other, there is nothing to say. He is editing from bad faith and that is pure vandalism and "I don't like it" type of reverts. The talk is finished. --DanielUmel (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of "bad faith" coming from you is really the pot calling the kettle black. You started off this section in a nasty, accusatory tone. I had to change the heading from a borderline personal attack on another editor because you really don't seem to have any capacity to WP:AGF and act in a collegial manner. Your repeated accusations of "vandalism" to those following normal WP:BRD conventions further demonstrate this. Sometimes debates do get heated, but you seem to be at boiling point 24/7. Such an attitude is not welcome here. I suggest you shape up or find something else to occupy your time with. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:41, 18 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 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. Jenks24 (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

Well then, I have actually defended my point which I mentioned in my vote, in that it should be consistant (yes, consistancy is actually important) in its encyclopaedic style. There is no other Syrian Civil War in history that is actually referred to as such. Thus it is a proper noun in that the event is happening and the agreed upon name in media and normal parlance is Syrian Civil War. That it hasn't been made official by the media is immaterial as the media won't do so for years. But for Misplaced Pages to wait years for news entities to make it official so we can finally capitalize it is ridiculous. Unless for some reason it irks some copyright somewhere, I don't see why we can't just go ahead and accept that it is a proper noun. If a different proper noun is used to describe it in normal lay conversation by the people of the affected land and the media itself, THEN we owe it to them and posterity to rename the article. Until then however, Syrian Civil War works. It isn't a violation of decency or anything else to use it as a placeholder proper noun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.38.25 (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, because it is wikipedia, that means we HAVE to wait for years, until reliable sources start using it as a proper noun. If we change it now, then it is Original Research and therefore it isn't allowed on wikipedia. Does that make sense? Jeancey (talk) 04:20, 14 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)

How do we define a "unique entity"? Was the American Civil War not a "unique entity" until sometime after the 1960's? We've already established that this situation is unique to Syria (citing " "2011–present" part removed because this is the only civil war there has ever been in Syria. --Tonemgub2010 19:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)"). Travürsa (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We "define" nothing, unless no common descriptor exists in the sources. A common descriptor does in this case exist, but is rarely, if ever, treated as a proper noun. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:20, 17 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)

Support: Just because other civil wars from history are capitalized, doesn't mean that this one also has to be capitalized. I think that if you were looking for another civil war that is very similar to this one, it would be the Libyan civil war. And that civil war is not capitalized, so, I don't really see why this one should be capitalized. SuperHero2111 (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Libyan Civil War should also be capitalized. That its not is more to do with the same assnine arguments about waiting for posterity first and until then having a very unprofessional looking page than it does being an actual proper noun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.38.25 (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

9? WP:NAME: Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources. That you find a descriptive title in line with what most reliable sources call it "unprofessional" is, quite frankly, your own damn problem. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Currently google has just over 35.5 million pages with the words Syrian civil war. Of those, only 1.1 million appear in that order. Therefore, the number of pages using Syrian Civil War extremely small compared to the total number of references to the event. That alone should provide enough reasons to uncapitalize it. Jeancey (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The numbers you raise are probably not reliable (issues with time frame, reliability of search results, et.c) but you raise a good point. We should be looking not only at the sources that say "Syrian Civil War" versus "Syrian civil war" but also the sources that describe the conflict as "the civil war in Syria," etc. --Nstrauss (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd also add that it appears the American Civil War wasn't capitalized until sometime after the war ended. Our page on the subject says that in 1962 the U.S. Supreme Court used lowercase letters, and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address] does the same thing. Of course style standards have changed since then, but I still think it's relevant. --Nstrauss (talk) 19:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

comment:This article by the Washington Post calls it the "Syrian civil war" http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/main-players-among-syrian-regime-opposition-and-rebels-in-the-countrys-civil-war/2012/08/15/cdc7d05c-e6af-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.178.61 (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - No more bureaucratic processes, just get on with it, there's overwhelming consensus for the move and it is per Misplaced Pages's standard practice and norms. It's such a trivial matter. James • 9:37pm • 11:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support – Until the majority of reliable sources capitalise, it should stay non-capitalised. I think we're very close to consensus, so when's the move?--Paracel63 (talk) 22:17, 19 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.

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)

Referring editors to article 83 of the Constitution of Syria; effectively designates the Syrian Arab Republic (based on political doctrine) as a semi-presidential republic.

The President of the Republic and the Prime Minister exercise executive authority on behalf of the people within the limits provided for in the constitution, Also refer editors to numerous other articles specified in chapter Two of the constitution. The Prime Minister may not be a commander, but is leader of the most powerful executive body, for which the military chiefs of staff report to (i.e. Ministers of Defense, Interior and National Security). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper (talk • contribs) 04:45, 26 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)

Yeah, that's the problem with brutal dictatorships, they don't have many supporters. :-P That said, CNN, Reuters, the BBC are all Reliable Sources and you'll have a very steep uphill climb to show that their reporting on news items is biased. HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:17, 15 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)

I believe it is now time to add Iranian government leaders/commanders in the info box. Such additions should be taken with care and based on reasonable sources. This belief comes as Iran formerly declares its military maneuvers within the SAR. Such Iranian commanders now have a major effect on the conflict, and should be added to provide readers with a complete overview of the conflict. I propose that such Iranian Commanders/leaders consist of individuals within the Iranian state apparatus with overall command responsibility (as defined and upheld under the IV Geneva Convention) (i.e. Head Of State, Defense Minister and/or other). Please kindly let me know your thoughts. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper (talk • contribs) 10:05, 2 September 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)

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

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)

Recently defected PM speaks out

Apparently, the recently defected prime minister Riad Hijab is speaking out about things now, and he claims that the al-Assad government controls "no more than 30%" of the country. In addition, not that anyone would have doubted it, he says he is officially joining the rebels.

If anyone thinks this is worth including, please do so. I'd add it myself, but I'm not quite sure where to put it, so I'll let someone else place it in an appropriate spot.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, it shouldn't be included in the article. Defectors often seek publicity with questionable claims. For instance, wasn't there a defected ambassador months ago who claimed Assad was on the verge of deploying chemical weapons? Furthermore, as was pointed out by the Guardian, controlling 30% doesn't say much because the Eastern 70% of Syria is practically uninhabited anyway. I suggest we take these claims with a grain of salt and don't include them. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This guy is being paid millions to say whatever the Qataris want. Not reliable. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Do not include. There is no significance in that statement. --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hijab admitted himself he was with the rebels from the start. He iis like a random rebel spokeman and no real power in Syria as I demonstrated above on thsi talk page. --DanielUmel (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

He did have formal power during his two months as prime minister. His claim of having been a rebel supporter from the start might as well be the Qatari money speaking, or fear of being executed by rebels, or both. That is all speculation, of course. The only thing we know for sure is that he was the official prime minister for two months. So that's what belongs in the article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the only thing we have to go is what he say. This is the only version on his postion and we have to go with that and not your Qatar money theory. --DanielUmel (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

As I already said, but which you conveniently ignored in order to create a strawman, I don't argue that we should go with the 'Qatar money theory'. Nor should we use Hijab's own statement as a source. The only factual thing we know is that he was the prime minister, regardless of his true allegiance. That's fact and facts are what belongs in a Misplaced Pages article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Might I ask exactly where this "Qatari money" thing comes from? As for the link, I was looking at the BBC news website, and thought it might be of use, but apparently not.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's the common practice. http://www.rt.com/news/syria-ambassador-qatar-defection-421/ And before the source is inevitably critisised, it's no less credible than many of the other rumours this article is filled with, sourced to "eyewitnesses" and "activists". FunkMonk (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. Common practice though? Looks like one specific reported incident (which I can't say did not happen). Bit of a jump to assume that any Assad defector is being paid off though. Besides, it appears that your story is based on nothing more than allegations by Assad's government - "Damascus says Qatar uses its financial resources to promote defections..." Because Damascus wouldn't say things just to divert attention or create a boogeyman... though again, that is not to say that it did not happen.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that the ones who have defected wouldn't reveal if they had been bribed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that, but you are still making a big assumption.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter, as I'm not proposing that it should be included in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

In any case, we all agree this guy is unreliable. At least most of us. EkoGraf (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

March 15, 2011, an appropriate starting date for the war?

March 15, 2011 seems like an awkward starting date for the civil war. No battles occurred on that day, just massive protests. Now that this article is changed to Syrian civil war, not Syrian uprising, I think we should consider changing the starting date. The American Revolutionary War began with the battle of Battles of Lexington and Concord, not the first massive protest against the British government. The Finnish Civil War (a featured arttcle) began with its first battle, and everything that happened before is included in the "Background". With this in mind, a more appropriate starting date for the Syrian Civil War would be September 27, 2011, which was the start of the First Battle of Rastan, the first major confrontation between opposition fighters and the Syrian government. The protests and politics that happened before are not exactly part of the civil war. The vast majority of war articles begin with its first battles, not first protests. ---- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Not every civil war starts with a battle, there are a lot of them that start out as civil unrest before erupting into armed clashes. Besides, trying to cite September 27, 2011, the way you propose is a bit of OR. Stick to what the sources say, and most, if not all, of the sources cite the conflict as being a 17 month conflict, that is, starting in March 2011. EkoGraf (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Good graphic about Assad's inner circle found, can be used to update infobox and create chart.

Here is a clear organizational chart of Assad's inner circle , including his family members, religious affiliations of members information regrading defections and deaths. We can't use this image, but a chart like this can be easily made. It's also a good resource for updating the infobox. Hope this helps. -- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Internal?

"The Syrian civil war, also referred to as the Syrian uprising, is an ongoing internal"...

With so many foreign spies, volunteers, advisors, mercenaries, terrorists and active participation of USA, UK, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Iran? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.88.251 (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Oversize

We have a serious problem in that the current size of 92850 bytes is more than 50% larger than the ideal maximum dictated by WP:SIZERULE, therefore I will be commanding further splittings, removals and deletions of content.Oxycut (talk) 07:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't oversized to begin with. Important articles are given exceptions to the byte limits. So long as they don't go over 200,000.

For example

World War I

World War II

Cold War

Vietnam War

Korean War

Gulf War

Iraq War

Libyan civil war

Tunisian Revolution

Egyptian Revolution (2011-2012) (This one even goes to 220,000 bytes) Sopher99 (talk) 07:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Hey Sopher, could you recheck your reversions list. I think 10-20k bytes are still missing. It's shorter than it was before all that stuff got removed, and I'm not sure what it was. Jeancey (talk) 07:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

• Just as a note, the size rule is JUST for prose, not infobox, picture captions, or references. Currently the article stands at around 10,000 words of prose, which is roughly 50kB in size. This is well under the 100kB guideline of probably a good time to split an article and SIGNIFICANTLY under the 200kB guideline for split the article now. The article isn't too long, its just about the perfect length. Jeancey (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Split into two articles: "Syrian Uprising" and "Syrian civil war"?

While there is little doubt that the current conflict in Syria has slipped into a state of civil war, the term "civil war" does not represent accurately the events during the first few months, which are better described as a "popular uprising." Of course, the civil war emerged as a product of the uprising, but the uprising and the civil war are not the exactly the same thing. A civil war is a "war" between armed groups, whereas an uprising is a series of demonstrations, strikes, sit-ins, street battles between protesters and police, etc., and this is how it was in the first few months. Indeed, the uprising continues until this moment, as demonstrations and other forms of popular and civil resistance still exist. What I suggest is to split this article into two articles, one is titled "The Syrian Uprising 2011" (or something like that), that focuses on the first few months of the conflict, and another one titles "Syrian civil war", which takes the conflict after it became militarized and qualified to be labelled as "civil war". Taleb3elm (talk) 09:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Lede

The current lede says the following:

The Syrian Civil War, also referred to as the Syrian uprising...

Which I think should be changed to:

The Syrian Civil War, previously referred to as the Syrian uprising...

This will emphasize what most reliable sources are already doing, as the characterization of the events as a civil war has far eclipsed the reference to uprising.

Wer900 • 17:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Some, although a much smaller number, are still referring to it as an uprising, that's why we don't put previously. EkoGraf (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Kosovo, Jordan and Lebanon

The adding of Kosovo to the info-box on the rebel side is WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and the RT source provided certainly does not meet the criteria for evidence needed for this kind of claim. It is remarkable that you wish to add Kosovo when multiple high quality sources exist for adding Jordan and Lebanon to the info box as part of the conflict. حرية (talk) 17:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Germany

I am very concerned with the addition of "Germany" in the infobox under "economic & military support" to the Syrian rebels. The reference, Reuters, specifically writes "a newspaper said on Sunday, without citing sources." Who says this is true? On an article like this, we can NOT simply write this as a FACT. If someone can change it to somethin galong the lines of "according to a certain newspaper..." it'd be better, but it's current format isn't acceptable. --Activism1234 21:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The newspaper was "Bild". FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

That's awesome. If it's going to stay, it should be noted this is the report of a newspaper, and not a definite fact. --Activism1234 22:19, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Readers will know that when they read the source. EkoGraf (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thats just pure speculation und should be therefore removed. Bild is not a reliable source, especially not for something like that. Misplaced Pages is a not aplace for unsourced rumors by bad newspapers. StoneProphet (talk) 22:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Get real, most readers don't even know what a Misplaced Pages reference is. --Activism1234 22:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree using one source for information in the infobox is not good practice. The Bild is not considered the most reliable of German newspapers. I think if there are other sources besides the Bild it would be fine to include. Guest2625 (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Then I suggest to remove the 120 dead Hezbollah from the information box and keep 27 dead to the first source. Otherwise this is just double standards to claim a website to be "non-reliable". Yalibnan.com is a VERY anti-Hezbollah/opposition newspaper in Lebanon and it is well-known; their sources should be taken by a grain of salt when it comes to this conflict.Intouchabless (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well firstly, I'm not that involved here, so I didn't even know about that part of Hezbollah. Please don't accuse me of double standards. Secondly, yes, if only that source says it, then go ahead and remove it. My case though is you have a source that wrote something, and all other sources that reported it specifically mentioned it was a report from Bild, ie still only 1 source. --Activism1234 21:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this also. In the infobox you should tend toward the conservative and add what is generally agreed upon. So, if the 120 dead Hezbollah combatants is a single source claim it shouldn't be included. Guest2625 (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Activism1234. I never intended to blame you for something. My post was general and not directed against you. And of course, if several articles refers to a single source, it should be deemed as a single source. This was just a misunderstanding for our part. Have a nice day :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intouchabless (talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries about it. I'm not going to get involved here about removing Hezbollah, Germany, but I'm glad this has been brought to attention and hope it will be taken care of responsibly. --Activism1234 23:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

We use pro-opposition and pro-government sources on an equal measure. We can not simply say this one is unreliable, this one is reliable. For the sake of neutrality, per Misplaced Pages policy, both sides points of view need to be presented. The term alleged was already added as a compromise solution, due to the claim coming from one side's point of view and not confirmed by the other. EkoGraf (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned above, it is due time for the removal of those dubious Hezbollah casualties. FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be non-neutral, I repeat, all sides views of the conflict need to be presented. The word alleged had already been put in place as a compromise solution months ago. The removal would be a renegation on the compromise. EkoGraf (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Religious map

What is the source for this map? It looks like original research, and should really have some citations on the description page. Of course there are Alawites in Damascus and Aleppo, the map is incorrect. FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the timeline?

I used to visit the page to link myself to the timeline to see what was happening day by day. That link no longer in this page. What happened to it? I'm referring to: Timeline of the Syrian civil war.

Should this be re-added for clarity? It is very relavent to this topic. Jimerb (talk) 17:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The timeline was removed during this large edit here but this partial reversion did not fully restore it. I suggest interested editors carefully check what was lost during the edits around that time. -84user (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

This looks like it was added back in by a contributor. All is good now. Jimerb (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages policy

Editors are urged to read Misplaced Pages:Splitting and linked pages before considering splitting parts of articles. Note it is important to follow the GFD license attribution requirements, for which see Misplaced Pages:Copyrights and Misplaced Pages:Copying within Misplaced Pages. -84user (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The map

The map is sourced, hwoever, it doesn't follow the sources. See the maps that were used as a sources. --Wüstenfuchs 13:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Which parts exactly do you mean? I have also left a message at the author's talk page , hopefully that will help too. Gryffindor (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I mean the Syrian coast, the Hatay Province and those part where the Christians make majority of the population. --Wüstenfuchs 18:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

There are many inaccuracies, with "holes" not found in the original sources. We don't need original research. I also strongly object to including a map that only singles out Alawites (such a map is only appropriate on strictly Alawite related articles). Either show all sects, or show nothing. FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

My point also. --Wüstenfuchs 22:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I refuse to make any more updates on File:Syria Ethnoreligious Map.png as I have already spent way too much time on it, and it seems like it will take me another 4-5 edits until Wustenfuchs accepts it. He wants me to make it exactly match his one source that he provided, even though I had 4 sources myself! I suggest that Wustenfuchs make his own version of the map and then update the file, because I personally have given up on this file. Actually, using Wustenfuch's POV, it would be much easier to just ask Columbia university for permission to use their file rather than go with my map lol.
But there remains another file, File:Alawite Distribution in the Levant.png, which I am more willing to polish as I only recently added it, and it is easier to deal with than all of Syria. Some have been complaining that it has "holes" and is "inaccurate" (lol). Well, it's not! I have posted a new image: File:Alawite distribution explained.png (only for clarification, please do not post it on WP). And the sources for it on: http://commons.wikimedia.org/File_talk:Alawite_distribution_explained.png. Moester101 (talk) 22:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

If you aren't going to make them match the sources exactly, then they will not be included in the articles. It is as simple as that. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Those maps are being spammed all over Misplaced Pages now, but they are blatant WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and even use Misplaced Pages articles as sources. They should not be used until they reflect published maps. FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

lol now my maps are "spam"? My map has tons of sources more than yours bud, and it's a lot more accurate. Yours shows all of northwestern Syria as Alawi, and it's NOT. Moester101 (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Texts (especially Misplaced Pages articles) cannot be used as sources for maps, only other maps. Otherwise it is just original synthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

You keep focusing your argument on a few WP articles that I had to use as sources, while ignoring that most my sources were not WP articles. But for some reason you keep ignoring my arguement about how your map is completely blown out-of-proportion and inaccurate. Are you still trying to tell me that Reyhanli, Afrin, Qusair, and all those other places are completely Alawi as your map shows? Of course not. I fear that our arguements are starting to become personal rather than about objectively presenting accurate info to our fellow WP readers. I hope this does not continue for the readers' sake. They deserve to know the full and accurate truth. Moester101 (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere, text should not be used as source for such maps, only other published maps. Furthermore, there is no excuse at all for using Misplaced Pages as a source, such sources should be removed. Your map is simply unreliable. The map I made does not exaggerate anything it simply reflects the published maps. FunkMonk (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I have added more sources to the cities that I originally only provided WP articles for. As for the claim that your map reflects published maps, I completely agree with you on that, but it however does not mean that they are completely accurate. I also have published maps backing my claims (4-5 of them to be exact) and add to that all of the articles I also provided, you end up with an amazing demographical map showing Alawites' distribution in the Levant. bye Moester101 (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

FunkMonk, are you aware the amont of maps of this type in Misplaced Pages/Wikimedia that could be considered in your words "blatant WP:OR and WP:SYNTH"? And if a map is not "WP:OR and WP:SYNTH" then its most likely to be a copyright infringement, then it follows that the former option is more appropiate given that the map is scrutinized. To be honest I don't think "WP:OR and WP:SYNTH" are to be strictly followed when making this kind (ethnic, religion, language, war) of maps. Chiton (talk) 02:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a very sensitive issue, so I don't think we should just nonchalantly create and spam incorrect maps all over the place; either the maps are scrutinised, approved and agreed upon by editors, or they simply stay out. No "lol"ing and complaining that revisions are demanded will change this. FunkMonk (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Guys, please take it easy on User:Moester101. It is easier to criticise one's work and a different thing to actually try to improve something, so let's try to stay civil. I think the Alawite map is a great start. Moester101, are you able to expand on academic sources into your Alawite distribution map and have it reflect into your work to be more accurate and satisfy the concerns raised here? That would be great, thank you. Wüstenfuchs, you objected to the depiction of the Syrian coast, the Hatay Province and those parts where the Christians make majority of the population. Could you please also source that so we can figure out what the exact demographics are for the areas concerned? Gryffindor (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I would not be lying to you if I told you that I have already gave that map all that I've got. I've seriously spent a lot of time on it, and have presented all the sources I possibly can as I wrote previously, I quite simply cannot come-up with any more sources than I already have. You guys have to realize the situation I'm dealing with, considering how generalized and overlooked this topic is, not a lot of professional historians/demographers are talking about this. But I truly believe that the number of sources I have already provided should be good enough for this map (remember to see this and this and this). I have never seen any other demographics map with as many sources as mine that is still being aggressively contested as my map has been! As for Wustenfuchs, I have already updated the map to reflect his concern about the north-wester Latakia area by making it less green to reflect the presence of a christian majority area, and a Sunni minority area just above the christian area. Bottom line is this: I simply don't know how to make the image be any better, but I would love it if any critics downloaded the image and edited it and re-uploaded it to make it more accurate (as long as their changes are sourced). Till then, cheers! Moester101 (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Moester, I'm sorry you have lost your time, but text sources aren't good enough to make a map, if so, then it's an original research. But considering maps that were used as a source on the Syrian ethno-religious map, those maps were actually equal with the one I showed you. So, you know, one can't change the look of the ethnic map just to bypass the copyrights, it must be the same, otherwise you could add anything to the map. I would also advise you to find a Syrian map where its municipalities are shown then compare it to the Census, which was made, I believe, in 2004. The census is the best source whene used on a detailed map. For example, this image. Croatian ethnic map is based on the 2001 Census and some certain user just painted the municipalites according to data from the census, simple as that. --Wüstenfuchs 08:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Syria is a little different than Croatia. The government does not include religion and ethnicity in its census b/c of the sensitivity of the issue, and add to that the fact that there's no map out there which shows all of Syria's municipalities like the Croatia map does. So the circumstances we're working with are a little different when it comes to Syria. Nevertheless, I would love it if you took my image File:Syria Ethnoreligious Map.png and improved it in the way that you think will make it accurate. I simply use Microsoft paint to adjust it, I'm pretty sure you can do that too. Once you've edited the image you can update it by going to the file's wikimedia page which I'm sure you already know how to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moester101 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The censorship section

Am I correct in thinking that a paragraph from our article about censorship of journalism, etc. is almost exactly copied from the relevant part of this page? It's listed as the source here, but this is hardly even paraphrasing, I think.  dalahäst  15:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Does it violate the copyrights? If not, then it's just fine. --Wüstenfuchs 16:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The site in question has this at the bottom of the page: "Web site content © CPJ. All rights reserved. Articles may be reproduced only with permission." Their FAQ page also states that you can email them for permission to reproduce their articles in print or online. Whether or not this applies to small parts of articles (which have been slightly modified, to boot), I couldn't say.  dalahäst  21:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

This report shows a case of close paraphrasing. It needs to be fixed ASAP. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Defectors are bribed

I have already pointed this out, but here is a more reliable source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/cash-the-lure-for-syrian-defectors/story-fnb64oi6-1226455233442 FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, since you've found a reliable link, it should probably be included somewhere in the article, specifically the section where it discusses the international response to the crisis. Kurtis (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

that is TTTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO INSANE FOR SOMEONE TO BELIEVE THAT . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 02:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If it can be verified using reliable sources, then it certainly can be mentioned in this article as a tactic Syria's opponents have been using to destabilize the regime and facilitate its eventual downfall. Kurtis (talk) 05:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Bribery is used frequently in the west as well. I'd assume it is less "INSANE" than blowing oneself up to kill others. FunkMonk (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with both Kurtis and FunkMonk. EkoGraf (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

even if it is true that one report only,and other newspapers never said stick with the fact,don't stick with weak reports. Alhanuty (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

1 - This article requires one to log in to the site to see the source.

2 - They are not talking about bribes, they are talking about Saudi Arabia planning on paying their wages. This was already announced to the entire world and has long been known. Syrian officials would be more willing to defect if they know their wages won't be lost. Many officials don't defect because they have to feed their families. Your fantasy that you exposed some sort of conspiracy is complete untrue. Sopher99 (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Great article and finally a RS supporting the theory. We should include this to the article. --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

agree with Sopher99,anyway this only on article and non-reliable . Alhanuty (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable by whom? The Australian is the biggest-selling national newspaper in Australia. Check out its Misplaced Pages page. That more than qualifies it on the reliability-scale. If you were of the opinion that its unreliable due to it stating something that can be conceived by some in some way as being anti-rebel than you should rethink your own neutrality. Actually, per your various comments around Misplaced Pages it can be seen you can't keep a neutral stand point, and have been a constant pro-rebel pov-pusher, by adding information, in 90 percent of the cases, without sources. EkoGraf (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't kid yourselves, this is certainly not the first time bribery has been reported, another example in English: http://rt.com/news/syria-ambassador-qatar-defection-421/ FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this should be included in the article. Claiming that they're not bribes, but simply the payment of the officials' wages by another state, is preposterous. We're talking about large sums of money, significantly more than would be needed to "feed their families". On top of that, reliable sources describe them as bribes. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup. EkoGraf (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This Is Only One Article EcoGrak,this cannot be confirmed except if other sources say that too,why didn't any other report it,such as the gurdian,or new york times and other big newspapers,this defiantly proves that this article is very unreliable .Alhanuty (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It has been reported elsewhere. And the Guardian and NY Times? Practically cheerleaders for the Salafist "rebels". FunkMonk (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, other sources have also been provided, so please refrain from pov-pushing Alhanuty. EkoGraf (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue with the reliability of this source per se (though I do take issue with the POV pushing going on from both sides in this thread...). I am concerned that 1) I cannot access the article to read the language concerning the cash payments, and 2) I'm seeing a lot of judgement laden language flying around in this discussion. I would ask that someone provide a chunk of the text for review if possible. If the source does not call them bribes, then we should not. If it does, but in context, we must also put that in context. It's certainly worth noting, but not in a manner that pushes one's own POV on this. And we cannot say "well, by my reasoning large amounts of cash paid are the saem thing as bribes." Misplaced Pages is not a source for our personal reasoning, but for the specific adherence solely to RS. We cannot extrapolate, spin, or play semantics with RS content. Until some source is available or demonstrated here that refers to them as bribes, I'd have to say I'm not comfortable with its inclusion.Jbower47 (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ecograf give me the sources NOW,this Australian source isn't enough to judge ,by the way i am neutral and i write the fact from the sources but goverment claims are mostly untrue and pro government and propaganda and some countries as china and russia propagandise and control all media sources and make sure the that their media is favourable to the government, so chinese ,russian,iranian,and other governments who support the syrian regime are unreliable .Alhanuty (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ask FunkMonk for the other sources. And please...by your own comments where each time a source says something possibly anti-rebel you yell nooooo its not true it can be seen you are not neutral. Are you going to tell me the Australian government is also controlling that Australian newspaper? And if you are of the opinion that anybody who supports the Syrian government can't report reliable news than I would have to say to you that anybody who supports the rebels can't report reliable news (US, UK, France, Turkey, etc). Example...who do you think controls and finances al-Jazeera? Hint - Saudi Arabia. Let's not be naive here. EkoGraf (talk) 16:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

i am not saying that the Australian government is also controlling that Australian newspaper i am saying bring other sources confirming it . it doesn't need to be from countries that support rebels,but it can't be from countries who support the syrian regime . Alhanuty (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

International court of justice

In this civil war in Syria the human rights and the Geneva Conventions are violated every day by both parts. This civil war is actually a massacre from both sides. The article does not make clear if these war crimes are subject to the international court of justice, such as in the case of the civil war in former Yugoslavia 688dim (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It does state, in the bottom paragraph of the lead, that international humanitarian law applies. I think that would make them liable for prosecution at the ICC. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Image in infobox

I believe that the File:Syrian Civil War.svg should be put into the infobox for two reasons. 1: An image of protesters gives the idea of the conflict being a protest or a minor uprising. Showing a map would show different areas of control. 2: It is similar to User:Rafy's map with Libya. This just a suggestion, just to bring up the idea now that is has 62 cities and towns on it. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 18:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Libya became a civil war after three weeks. Syria became a civil war after 16 months. For the vast majority it was an uprising. The maps belong in the civil war subsection. Sopher99 (talk) 09:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. The crowd picture is in the infobox for the Uprising article. We should have something here which is actually from the period of war.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxycut (talk • contribs) 05:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Or we could put it in the war subsection, like it already is. Sopher99 (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

And a quick check on the page history shows me that your are

The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts. (Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets)

, a user who frequently vandalizes this page. Sopher99 (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not Oxycut, and I do agree to keep it in the war section (at least until November 15, 2013, if the war continues until then or for obvious reasons, a consensus to change it.) There also is no Uprising page, as there was no consensus to move anything. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 14:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

As a sidenote, the user with the unsigned comment is Oxycut. The one that goes "I agree with this proposal. The crowd picture is..." Sopher99 (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for assuming that was meant toward me! –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 23:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sopher99. --Tonemgub2010 (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Spesh531. --Wüstenfuchs 20:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

We have an article on the uprising which ceased 14 July 2012. The crowd picture is from that event and that period. The existence of civil war was recognised from 15 July 2012, by the Red Cross. This article's for sake of covering events from that time onward, although it is permissible to maintain a background section which is not unduly large for the sake of outlining how things got to the scenario of armed hostility.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxycut (talk • contribs) 16:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

We do not have a Syrian Uprising stop trying to push it without a consensus from the community. PLEASE sign your posts, User:Oxycut, thank you. The article includes the protests, uprisings, and the war. Its the same way with the Libyan civil war. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 23:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Many civil wars throughout history didn't start out as wars, but rather civil unrest. But we all lump each conflict into unified articles and don't separate the starting events from the later escalating war. So there is no need for a separate protests or uprising articles. EkoGraf (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

We need to better emulate the image that was used for the Libyan civil war, since it presents rebel-held areas much more better than simple geometric shapes. Never the less, I agree with Spesh531. Intelligent Deathclaw (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

infobox

This is from todays Guardian: "The rebel forces' inability to receive reinforcements is not helping them against a standing military that continues to outman and outgun them. Nor are new weapons coming their way, after the flush of guns and bombs taken in raids on regime depots abandoned by fleeing forces in late-July.

A trickle of assault weapons and ammunition comes over the border from Turkey, with the help of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkish intelligence officials. However, the heavy weapons that rebel leaders have been calling for, especially anti-aircraft guns, have not arrived." And Russia, consistent and straight down the line, pro-Assad, is not there. is this state of affairs represented in the misinfobox? 92.13.84.167 (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

We have a couple of hard-core Assad supporters on this page who are holding up such changes. Unfortunately, the cadre of POV-pushers on the other side is giving them justification to exert tight editorial control over the article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The pot is again calling the kettle black! You are one of many intrusive pov-pushers to have worked on this article. Meowy 20:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hezbollah fighters again again

Could whoever keeps re adding Hezbollah to the infobox based on biased and unreliable sources please stop? Same with Iranian fighters. Furthermore, Hezbollah has downright rejected involvement, not that they would gain anything from making such denials: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2012/Mar-05/165529-hezbollah-rejects-claim-of-involvement-in-syria.ashx#axzz24elGpzGV FunkMonk (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

How about this: we can talk about removing them if the United States, Germany, and other countries that haven't sent troops to Syria are removed from the infobox. I mean, Iranian and Hezbollah fighters are in Syria, so that's still giving up way more factual ground to your side than you rightly merit, but I'm getting really sick of seeing the rebel side in this infobox look like the entire United Nations is fighting on their side when they're losing practically every major engagement due to government air power. It's horribly deceptive. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh, so it seems like you have some knowledge which the rest of us don't. What is your source for "Iranian and Hezbollah fighters are in Syria"? FunkMonk (talk) 03:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

robert fisk mentions Hezbollah fighters in this piece, (and wall sreet journal 10 August says it gives advice training etc ), - and though he is pretty much anti-rebel far as I can tell, robert fisk says here the syrian army despite how it and pov would like it to appear, isn't squeaky clean - - according to the regime Shabiha don't exist - everything is deniable -people believe according to their prejudices , believe in atrocities committed by the other side, not in atrocities committed by their side - as george orwell pointed out - facts have little to do with it Sayerslle (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, a Robert Fisk article quoting rumours is not enough for inclusion in the infobox. And Fisk is by no means anti-rebel, he has close ties with the March 14 movement of Lebanon. And in any case, it has been pretty clear these 18 months that the side that produces most rumours and lies is the opposition side. Everything the regime has claimed has immediately been denied by the West and rebels, yet has been confirmed several months later. And the regime doesn't deny he existence of "shabiha", they simply don't mention them. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

"Everything the regime has claimed has immediately been denied by the West and rebels, yet has been confirmed several months later." You really arent very pov are ya?? and 'the west and the rebels' - really subtle analysis, this. beyond bad - cretinous pov imo. Sayerslle (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I could give dozens of examples (latest fabrication is the Farouq Sharaa defection and that "Maher Assad lost his legs"), but it is irrelevant, this is not a discussion forum. Bottom line is, it is unconfirmed that Hezbollah or Iranian fighters are present in Syria, therefore they should be removed from the infobox, but could be mentioned in the main text. And is it really that hard to use "civil" language (core Misplaced Pages principle)? You could get blocked again, so well, just continue, lol. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Everything the regime says is confirmed - Houla? You said "Everything the regime has claimed has immediately been denied by the West and rebels, yet has been confirmed several months later." npov is a core wikipedia principle is it not? you seem to have a very set pov to me, but youre right this isnt a discussion forum - "reality is the master" funkmonk. Sayerslle (talk) 00:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Not to go off track, but could you then point me to some government claims about the insurgents that have turned out blatantly false? Muslim Brotherhood domination? Foreign fighters? Al-Qaeda presence? Suicide bombers? Western/Gulf support? Sectarian motives? Zionist support? Killing of civilians and unarmed prisoners? All pretty much confirmed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

And this is from fisk talking to the foreign minister yesterday . asked about Shabiha, fisk writes - "And the infamous Shabiha militia blamed for atrocities in the countryside? Walid Muallem doesn't believe in them. There might be local unarmed people defending their property from armed groups, he says. But pro-regime, paid militiamen? Never. No war crimes charges against the Syrian Foreign Minister, then." Walid doesnt believe in them funkmonk. he didnt say ' oh yeah like funkmonk says, there out there all right

, but we don't mention them'..- he denies they xist . not a forum. adios amigo. Sayerslle (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

From that, it only seems he doesn't believe they're paid, but that he believes there are armed pro-regime groups. Is there any proof they are paid anyway? FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In the interview he says "There might be local unarmed people.." . do you believe the regime incapable of lying about this? oh yeah, "Everything the regime says is confirmed" - they never lie. oh, I do see. silly me.Sayerslle (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Calm down. No one said anyone was "incapable of lying", but he does seem to contradict himself a bit, rather than lying, as I don't see how an unarmed man can defend himself from heavily armed men. In any case, this is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is that there is no proof that Hezbollah are fighting in Syria (other than claims by biased sources), so including them in the infobox is practically libel. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Impact section created for this article, needs expansion

I have created an "Impact" section for this article, which you can find near the end. So far it includes, "crime wave", "refugees", "effects on Lebanon", and "Deaths". However, each of these subsections are rather short, and needs expansion. If you can help out, that would be great.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Redundant countries in infobox

Usually only direct belligerents and exceptional supporting states/organizations are listed. Not any humanitarian supporter deserves to be put in the infobox per WP:UNDUE and the issue of the exceptional claim for this very violent conflict.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

As you well know (because it is explicitly stated after each of those countries in the infobox) they're NOT just "any humanitarian supporter". They are actually militarily involved, with the US having CIA operatives on the ground on the Turkey-Syria border and Germany having a warship off the Syrian coast. That's NOT giving undue weight and it's NOT and exceptional claim. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

"Moscow has been a close ally of Syria since the 1973 Arab-Israeli war and has regularly supplied its military in conflicts since. Along with its modest garrison at Tartus, Russia has military officers in Syria under the auspices of its embassy and civilian technical advisers working irregularly on Russian-made air defense systems and repairing airplanes and helicopters in Syria," New York Times in June. 92.13.84.32 (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The Western nations providing non-lethal military equipment and intelligence should definitely be listed because they are clearly getting involved in the conflict.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 01:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, if you want to pretend Sweden, Spain, and Switzerland were belligerents during World War II. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

^^^ ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Taal and Future. EkoGraf (talk) 13:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right, greyshark09. Trouble is, this article is a propaganda piece that is owned by pov warriors. The solution would be for you to go to those who designed the conflict infobox. The specifics about what a conflict infobox should (and should not) contain has been already worked out - though you will probably need to do some digging to find it. For example, "Belligerents" has a specific meaning (there was A LOT of discussion to work out that specific meaning in discussions related to America's invasion of Iraq), and the content that you are objecting to in this article's conflict infobox falls well outside the permitted meaning. To be classed as a "belligerent" you have to have soldiers or militia fighting on the ground, and those soldiers or militia have to be acting under the direct control of a nation state or be part of some other NOTABLE recognised body or organisation that is capable of exerting that control. Countries providing just "Economic or military support" are not belligerents for conflict infobox purposes (though such support can of course be mentioned in the body of the article). Meowy 16:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and delete that content on the grounds that is is a misuse of the infobox. It is not a matter for individual article consensus or discussion - the whole purpose of an infobox is to provide a standardised delivery of preselected content over many articles. Meowy 16:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

For once, I agree with Meowy. There might be a case for the likes of Turkey and Qatar if it can be proven they are sending military advisers to Syria as Iran has been doing (as the United States did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan). But when we have to include a parenthetical complex sentence full of qualifiers after half the entries in the infobox, I think we should take that as a sign we're a bit too quick to stuff the infobox full of trivia and minutia rather than reflecting the actual reality on the ground. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think even "military advisors" can count for the infobox unless there are thousands of them and they are really just being called "advisors" to disguise the true scale of an outside country's involvement. The Turkish "advisors" maybe number a couple of hundred at most and it is uncertain how much the Turkish government knows about them, or whether they are even there under the instructions of the Turkish government. Meowy 19:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

To see what is meant by "belligerent" for the purpose of infoboxes, I suggest looking at this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/Template_talk:Infobox_military_conflict#Request_to_change_.22Belligerant.22_back_to_.22Combatant.22 and this one http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_74#Military_Conflict_Infobox_terminology_.26_POV-pushing Meowy 19:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

On the http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Infobox_military_conflict page, the parameters section still uses the older "combatants" term rather than the more recently decided on "beligerents" one, but it is still fairly clear about what should be there: "...the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated..." and "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict" Meowy 19:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The US and Europeans have been on the infobox for a while. Stop deleting them until we get a consensus here.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You can't put countries you like, in violation of long standing understandings on the structure of infoboxes.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Military advisors on the ground can sometimes be counted as "supporting" sides, in case of notability. Soviet Union for example provided a very significant support during the Angola civil war, loosing dozens of "advisors" as casualties on the ground. I guess Iran is clearly a supporting side for this matter and so is Hizbullah, who openly supports the Syrian Government. The case for Turkey, Qatar and Saudia is a matter of controversy, however i tend not to oppose those (some sources suggest active support of rebels) as much as inclusion of USA, Russia, France, Germany and Canada, who for sure have no forces or logistics on the ground (their entire support is largely declarational).Greyshark09 (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

For goodness's sake, Meowy, use some common sense here. The U.S., and the Europeans are clearly taking an active role in the conflict by providing military support. Military support is not the same as belligerent, but it's still important and deserves mention in the infobox.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 20:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You just said the problem though, it is not the same as a belligerent therefore it is WP:POV to have it placed there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the Angolan Civil War. It's rated as a good article, and it contains parties providing military support. Again, military support is important and deserves mention in the infobox, especially for this article. It's not POV if it's obvious that the US and the others are supporting the rebels. Plenty of news sources suggest this.-- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 23:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I see the wording "Supported by:" rather than "Economic and military support:" I suppose if we just change the wording then they can be allowed, when you go into details things become complex and I think thats the case here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It used to say "supported by" but that was deemed too vague. People started adding China because they felt veto'ing a UNSC resolution qualified as "support". Hence the wording "economic and military support". - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the section header in the infobox says "belligerents". If a country is not a belligerent, then it should not be there, regardless of the form of support it provides. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 10:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

From the article belligerent: "A belligerent (lat. bellum gerere, "to wage war") is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner". I'd say sending over CIA operatives (USA) or an intelligence-gathering warship (Germany) qualify as "acting in a hostile manner". - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Again...agree with Future and Taal. Those countries are all, per the Misplaced Pages term belligerent, acting in a hostile manner towards Syria by sending money, weapons, communications equipment, advisors and spotters (Germans). EkoGraf (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Belligerent or combatant should be a NOTABLE hostile party/country/organization, who openly engage is hostile activities (money or sales is very hard to verify and is highly UNDUE). We can also add supporters, which clearly sent assistance to either side like Iran, Hizbullah to Syrian Government and Turkey, Saudia and Qatar to the opposition (not sure if all are notable supporters, but let's agree on that).Greyshark09 (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

AP Press, 22 August has this news, printed in the Christian Science Monitor:

" Moscow; Russia accused Western powers Wednesday of "openly instigating" Syrian opposition groups to take up arms in their fight to unseat President Bashar Assad.Moscow has been Syria's key protector throughout the 17-month uprising that has evolved into a full-blown civil war, shielding Assad's regime from international sanctions and providing it with weapons despite an international outcry." it should accuse the western powers of "openly arming" rather than "openly instigating" - taal, ekograf, funkmonk, why are russia pussyfooting around with their language. also it misrepresents Russias neutrality. makes you sick. Sayerslle (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That pussyfooting is called diplomacy, and if you don't approve of it (it makes you sick) that's your personal opinion, which I respect and don't go into. EkoGraf (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

EkoGraf, when you add countries to the infobox, it doesn't make it "status quo". You shall be reverted until consensus is reached for inclusion of additional countries.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The countries were already in the infobox for a month before this discussion was opened. They were not added during the discussion. Thus a status quo is to leave them in there until it is resolved. And as far as I see it, you are the only one who have been removing them, while, besides me, two other editors have also been reverting you. EkoGraf (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh really??? Has no one reverted US and Britain additions and has no one reverted Canada, France, Germany and all other invented supporters in the last couple of days??? Were France, Germany, and Canada even mentioned a month ago? I really expected a more serious answer from such an experienced editor as you are. This is a serious WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Just a question but is there a reason why the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and France have detailed info on how they are helping the opposition? I see no other country listed that gives those kind of details. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not for adding those details beside the name of the supporting countries if it is all properly referenced/sourced. The readers can see the details in the sources. EkoGraf (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

But presenting countries like the US and Germany as if they were the same as the FSA or the Syrian government is horribly undue WP:WEIGHT. The fact that disclaimers are needed shows that maybe including them as combatants is not a good idea. We could make a simple bluelink in the box that says Non-combat support from several other countries and link it to the section in the article describing such support. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I got this from a DEBKA file news report 30 August - I think its RS? "Syrian President Bashar Assad was notified that Moscow was halting military aid to his army - except for intelligence updates and advice on logistics from Russian military advisers;" so do we get to put Russia in the infobox ? - the infobox is Assadian/Press tv-ish in my eyes Sayerslle (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't know in which way it is implied they are the same as the FSA, it is simply noted they present economic and military support. In any case, all of those countries are actively engaging in anti-Syrian government activities with the sole purpose of bringing down the Syrian government. And per Misplaced Pages's definition of the word beligerent, which says in the infobox, they fit that definition. EkoGraf (talk) 17:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Debka is not reliable WP:RS.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the Wikipedian who said that we don't put all the information as how the countries are helping the opposition. There are sources to which the readers can resort to. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I like Lothar's idea. Also, if we're going to consider Canada a belligerent (for God's sake, people), why not Russia? It's actually sent warships and (noncombat) troops to Syria. That's way more involvement than whatever Canada is doing. And why not Libya, for that matter? And hey, Egypt just criticized the Syrian government, too. Maybe it should count as a belligerent. (Seriously though, Russia and Libya really should count if we're being so inclusive.) Anyway, Lothar's suggestion of bluelinking a new page a la Allies of World War II seems like a beyond-fair compromise. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

the intelligence copoperation between Russia and Syria - is a facet of a complex strategic relationship - Mikhail Fradkov was in the delegation Russia sent on a mission to Assad , ostensibly to persuade Assad to implement democratic reforms - yet Russia doesnt appear - but Canada does - as you say, for Gods sake people Sayerslle (talk) 19:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

PKK and Fahman Hussein

PKK's leader Fahman Hussein is Bashar Al-Assad's school friend, and Fahman is also a doctor. Bashar Al-Assad regime is arming PKK rebels against Turkey, has always been doing so. (Abdullah Ocalan's base was in Syria before he was captured) and this intensified more since Turkey helped the Syrian opposition. --Camoka4 (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I posted this apparently, just after Camoka did, so I just moved it under this section...

I was looking at the article history a bit earlier and noticed that somebody removed the Kurdistan Workers' Party as a belligerent, presumably due to it not being sourced, but another editor, who has been quite prominent in editing on this article, re-added it, still without a source. I did not remove it because I have no interest in getting into an edit war, and it's pretty clear to me that there's a double standard here. There is a continuous debate on Hezbollah and Iranian involvement (I happen to believe that they are involved, but again, I want no part of an edit war), but not a word over the inclusion of the PKK on the rebel side, with no source? (for the record, I'm not disputing involvement of other extremist groups with the rebels)

To the contrary, I had actually read before that the PKK claimed it would fight on Al Assad's side, especially if Turkey was to get more heavily involved (I do not recall the source, so I am not going to actually suggest that the PKK be added to the other side though).

Again though, can we take a closer look at PKK involvement though If somebody can provide a valid source, I will gladly stand down.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a source (though it's about four months old) mentioning the PKK hedging its bets with Assad:

Kurds Remain on the Sideline of Syria’s Uprising - New York Times - April 17, 2012

" A wild card in all this is the Kurdistan Workers Party, known as the P.K.K., a well-armed and well-trained militia that has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States. In Syria the group has allied itself with the Assad government, which could use it to stir up tensions along the Turkish border, should Mr. Assad see the need.

In the past, Syria armed and protected the P.K.K. in its long campaign against Turkey, though that assistance cooled when relations between the countries began improving little more than a decade ago. The group has already threatened to turn all Kurdish areas in the region into a “war zone” if Turkey crosses the border to intervene in the Syrian crisis. "

Hope this clears things up. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Free Syrian Army and use of quotations in "terrorist"

The use of quotations in surrounding the word "terrorist" is POV. I think by most signifcant standards and definitions, the FSA would be fair to categorize as a terrorist organization. Their abuses or torture and beheadings of unarmed defensless people as well as their intimidation of even anti-Assad demonstartors is documented by Human Rights Watch, as I have shown in the links I put below (sorry relatively new to this, I think I posted the previous topic incorrectly)

Therefor to maintain the nuetral POV, I suggest the FSA be described as a terrorist organization, without putting quotation marks, ie "terrorist", calling that factual statement as a invalid claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.112.197 (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

According to the international law, they are all criminals and even taking POWs is considered a war crime. It is close to terrorist, however, in order to prevent any edit warring it's good to use quotation marks. --Wüstenfuchs 17:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The terrorism they don’t like is called ‘terrorism’ and the terrorism they do like, because they carry it out or their allies carry it out, is called ‘counter-terrorism’. Noam Chomsky- talking about the Nazis I think, but its always the same kind of thingSayerslle (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's all relative, so we shouldn't use "terrorist" anywhere~on Misplaced Pages. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. Some groups or people, like al-Qaeda, or Breivik, are internationally recognized as terrorists by the international community. The FSA, however, is not, and writing that they are terrorists would be a serious serious breach of neutrality. --Activism1234 21:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You also need to consider that the FSA is very large and is not that centralized, so the actions of some members don't necessarily reflect the actions of others, just like the actions of soldiers in any army or peacekeepers in any country don't reflect the country, army, or peacekeeping force as a whole, unless the director of said organization specifically orders terrorist attacks it'd be different. --Activism1234 21:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the Misplaced Pages article describing Breivik and al Qaeda as terrorists, only that others have described them as such. The articles don't say "x is a terrorist". They say "x has been declared a terrorist by y". FunkMonk (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

True, but terrorist acts like what Breivik did are in fact described as terrorist attacks. --Activism1234 23:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The word terrorist in quotes or not in quotes shouldn't be used to describe the FSA or the Syrian government. The word carries too much ideological baggage. The use of terrorism can in fact describe the actions of both sides of the conflict. The indiscriminate shelling by the government of opposition held neighborhoods is in fact terrorizing large segments of the Syrian population. The government is using terror through torture, indiscriminate violence and group punishment to suppress those parts of the population that disagree with it. The Syrian government is in fact generally considered a police state like the former Eastern European countries where the use of state terror through surveillance, arbitrary arrest and torture was used to control the population.

It's important to note that utilizing the word terrorist in quotes doesn't in fact sanitize the word. A mental association is still created with the notion of terrorist even when it is placed in quotes. It is in fact completely non-neutral to use the word either with quotes or not quotes. The constant usage of the term in fact merely utilizes techniques described by propagandists of World War II:

But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success. -"War Propaganda", in volume 1, chapter 6 of Mein Kampf (1925), by Adolf Hitler.

Usage of neutral language in Misplaced Pages is very important and contributors should err on the side of positive rather than negative. Guest2625 (talk) 22:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with this, that it shouldn't be included at all. --Activism1234 23:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I am using a new Smart phone here and my laptop is being repaired, so I am trying to figure out how to post here. Please look at the top of the discussion threads at "Free Syrian Army human rights abuses" for some links. (I haven't learned how to copy and paste on this stupid phone). Human rights Watch, has condemned their abuses, if we are to consider them a credible source that is not pro-Assad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.112.197 (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC) Ah, ok, he's how to paste the links:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2017801064_syria21.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2012/0416/Syrian-activists-to-rebels-Give-us-our-revolution-back

Now perhaps terrorist seems POV, but at the very least we should mention the FSA's tortures, kidnapings of unarmed and defensless pro-Assad civilians and ethnic minorities. As bad as Assad is, there are many anti-Assad Syrians who also have a dislike of the FSA and it is important to show there aren't just two sides to this. This lack of nuance in covering the conflict is not unlike the support of the Mujihadeen against the Afghan Communists, or the support for the Libyan rebels against Gaddafi then ended up lynching a number of Black Libyans. Life is not Star Wars with good guys and bad guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.112.197 (talk) 04:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly; recommend blanket removal of all instances of the term. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

And just to clarify, I say the same in regards to the Syrian government if it's written there. It's not appropriate for this article. --Activism1234 23:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As stated above, the term terrorist carries a very strong connotation. Unless a reliable source describes them as terrorists, the FSA should be called more neutral terms. Furthermore, the only major sources that seems to be calling the FSA a terrorist organization is the Syrian government (which is obviously not credible).Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What you guys agreed on is actually a policy. See WP:TERRORIST. Mohamed CJ (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Wording for France in the infobox

I not going to suggest that France, or any other country for that matter, be removed, but I noticed that it currently says "non-weapon military supplies". That wording seems a little awkward. Couldn't it just be changed to "nonlethal military supplies"? The al-Arabiya source cited actually uses the "nonlethal" term, as well. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. EkoGraf (talk) 12:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War is not the common term used to refer to the events

I am not debating if the events are technically a civil war, but this is not the term used common to search for or describe the events.

A more common term is Syrian insurgency or revolution.

Would love to learn from Wikipedians the criteria that Misplaced Pages recommends for selecting names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nafdik (talk • contribs) 16:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• This subject has already been debated extensively. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_11 Kernsters (talk) 19:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Categories

Shouldn't we add, for instance, Category:Wars involving Canada, Category:Wars involving the United Kingdom, and like that? Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

is this map reliable

the person who made the mape of the battle of aleppo had made other maps including a map for the situation in eastern syria, is this map reliable.

here is the map http://twitpic.com/amdp68 Alhanuty (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Infobox - combatants

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

War map

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

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

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

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

• 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 military history articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages sockpuppeteers
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment