Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:34, 6 March 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

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

Template:Pbneutral

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 was nominated for deletion on 19 February 2011. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arab world High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology: Social Movements High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the social movements task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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..

This article documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses, and initial news reports may be unreliable. The latest updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. Feel free to improve this article or discuss changes on the talk page, but please note that updates without valid and reliable references will be removed. (February 2012) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

UN sanctions or mandated intervention still is possible

According to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 377, the General Assembly can sanction Syria or authorize military intervention if the Security Council cannot agree on a resolution. Why the responsible members of the international community don't realize this confuses me. The only reason the UNSC cannot agree on a resolution is due to weapon sales to the Syrian regime from greedy Russia. If Russia wants to be an influential member of the international community, being greedy and selling weapons to violators of international law is the wrong way to get there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.197.206 (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2012‎ (UTC)

Too long

The article is again way too long -- twice the size of the suggested max. If someone would like to address that (with spin-off articles and sprucing), that would be great.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We need a spin off for the military side but some cry babies like Kuzdu and some other are pressuring admins to keep the article like that. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Be careful, you are bordering on a personal attack Jeancey (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• However its done, I think it is becoming a greater and greater necessity. Events will certainly only continue to unfold, and more will be written -- and the article is already unwieldy and out-of-guidelines large. The article is now over 185,000 bytes, making it one of the 370 longest articles at the Project. WP:SIZERULE states: "Some useful rules of thumb ... What to do ... > 100 KB ... Almost certainly should be divided".--Epeefleche (talk) 20:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I brought down the article to 175k, by eliminating the peace proposal, international, and refugee section in favor for suggestions to the readers to read the articles specifically about. Sopher99 (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Great. A start.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think a big problem isn't really the length, but the HUGE amount of sources that are being used. What we really need to do is consolidate sources, so one source that contains lots of information can be used instead of 10 sources containing small bits of info. Jeancey (talk) 21:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think it may be both, but it is certainly the length -- per Misplaced Pages:Article size. As to the refs, perhaps they can be put in a collapse box? I'm not sure, though I do believe I've seen that done in cases similar to this one.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, you should also remember that while the references don't appear inline, they still contribute a lot to the size of the article. The browser doesn't care that you can't see it, it still has to load them. Jeancey (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Do we have to put the references in news format always, or is there a simpler way? Sopher99 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

That format is best because it includes a lot of information useful for repairing dead links. Since most of the arab spring articles have been using that format, it is also consistent. Jeancey (talk) 22:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree w/Jean that it is the best format, among other things for primary reason given. And agree that putting it in a collapse would not address the load time -- but it would address (to a small extent) the "wow -- this looks like a confusingly long page to read" issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI -- as to to collapsing the refs, I received this advice.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think the problem is the content of the article. By example, the military battles are completely left out and nobody know the postions on the ground with this article. A sub page is needed but it has been deleted by moderators due to syrian opposition members request.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Quit complaining about your WP:POVFORK being merged back into this page, Chronical. That discussion is closed, and your attempts to discredit the myriad people who favored deleting the fork just make you look intransigent. As to the page size, I think the biggest culprit here is WP:RECENTISM. A lot of content on this page should be reevaluated from a historical standpoint. The gritty details are for other pages. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks to all those who have brought the article size down to 157,000 bytes. Obviously, this will be an ongoing issue to address, but some great culling was done, which no doubt makes the article far more readable and less daunting for new readers. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  More stuff was added recently, but I pruned some of the references. When I started this morning, it was at 165.3kb, now its at 151.1kb. I'll try and prune a little more. I'm going to try and see if I can't combine some of the references, i.e. if one reference can be used in place of several other references in the article. We'll see how that goes. Jeancey (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Cut down the "reactions" section by half, and that'll solve it. It already has its own article. FunkMonk (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm still working my way through the article. I'm at 150.8kb atm. Jeancey (talk) 20:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Down below 150kb!!! Its at 148.3kb! On a side note, I found an amazing reference on the opposition parties in syria here Jeancey (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Vote to Include Alqaeda in the infobox, or not?

This endless, unreasonable discussion has gone on to long. If you support to include alqaeda. Write support. If you oppose, write oppose. Sopher99 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• "Oppose" no data supports them as a beligerent. =Samcat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsamcat (talk • contribs) 16:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. Nothing has been confirmed, we don't include hezbollah and iran even though there is similar accusations. Alqaeda is a pre-existing insurgency, a totally separate uprising. During the yemeni uprising alqaeda seized many towns, but they are not part of the yemeni uprising. Sopher99 (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Completely Support Al Qaeda or jihadist groups. Al Qaeda leader Zawahiri openly support the rebellion, Iraki official tell that jihadists cross from irak to fight in Syria, US spy official reveal that Al Qaeda is in the mix. Jihadists are another group of the fight against Assad, different from FSA. Different from Iran/Hezbollah as fristly both denied any involvment and secondly it came only from opposition sources. If only the syrian governement was talking Al Qaeda, it would not be worth it, but here, we have plenty of sources. --ChronicalUsual (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Just remember, a vote means nothing. Even if there is a slight majority one way or the other, that would still be a deadlock, even if its 51%-49% Jeancey (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

We understand that it needed Consensus to pass. Sopher99 (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I expect that if included, we would source it to an RS or two. We already have in the infobox a number of entries, similarly sourced (unfortunately, I see we also have a number of ibox entries that are not sourced in the ibox). Many are even identified as being a "claim". If we do add it, consistent with what we already have, I would suggest we supply the appropriate ref(s) and -- if appropriate -- term it a claim as well, just as we do throughout the ibox.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand, but can you guys stop commenting and start voting, the vote needs to win by a wide majority to win, and its not going to go anywhere if only two people are voting. Sopher99 (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Completely Oppose If you want to include al queda, then you'll have to include the Iranian government as well, on the side of the Syrian government. Several reports, including from "Russia Today" talk about thousands of iranian troops entering Syria to aid the government in it's crackdown on everything anti-government. It's already confirmed that Iran and other countries supplied the Syrian government If you really have to include al queeda, that you'll have to include Iran and Hezbollah, as they continue to support the assad government and there are the same level, if not more, accusations on the subject. For example, the US recently sanctioned Iran's intelligence agency for "supporting Syria's crackdown on dissidents". That is why we shouldn't put these accusations in the infobox, and it would be very non-neutral if al-queda was put in and you're not going to put Iran in also.Gotlak (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. There are numerous sources that cite Al Qaeda's supporting the opposition forces. Drimidiri (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Properly source it, as we have done in the ibox when we've gotten things right. And -- if need be, as with other "claims", reflect it as a claim (but if we do that, do it with all other "claims" in the ibox). We have RSs reporting it, and reporting that high-level government officials are saying it, so let's reflect it as we reflect all other such information. As to whether others similarly supported should be reflected, that is a discussion for a separate string, if someone wants to open it up for consideration, but I would tend to say yes to similarly supported entities.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. In recent weeks numerous sources, including American officials from the intelligence community and the Iraqi Interior Ministry, have confirmed even a small presence of Al Qaeda in the country and a reasonable degree of their connection to the recent suicide bombings against Syrian government police and military targets. Plus, Al Qaeda has voiced their support for the uprising and multiple foreign news reporters who have been smuggled into the country by the FSA have confirmed, even though a limited, presence of foreign fighters among the FSA (most coming from Iraqi Al Qaeda). The reporters and the Iraqi government have also confirmed that the Iraqi Al Qaeda has been the one providing the weapons via Mosul in Iraq over the border into Syria for the FSA in smuggling operations. EkoGraf (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Eko, could you provide sources for those smuggled journalists which confirmed presence of foreign fighters in Syria? I thought that I read all reports made by them (Guardian, Sky News, CNN, BBC and several freelancers) and I never saw such a thing there. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply It was among Al Jazeera's news blogs on Syria that I read a report about a week ago by one of their journalist of seeing several foreign fighters among those at Homs. I can't find it at the moment. I did find a report from a Beirut source that was with the FSA near Homs recently and he stated he saw hundreds. Source here . Also, here is the report by the Iraqi Interior Ministry about the weapon smuggling operations by jihadists and them sending fighters to Syria from Iraq. One more thing, read my other comment bellow. Top US intelligence officials today confirmed that Al Qaeda was most likely behind the Aleppo bombing. However anybody who opposes this notion tries to spin it, foreign radical jihadists are now a part of this conflict. The war in Bosnia in the 90s started at first as a war only between the pro-independence people and the anti-independence people...but than evolved into a war where you had Serbs vs Croats, Serbs vs Muslims, Muslims vs Croats, pro-Serb Muslims vs anti-Serb Muslims, Serbs vs foreign jihadists, etc, etc, etc. In Lebanon during the civil war you had more than a dozen different parties to the conflict. In Iraq recently the same thing, at least half a dozen different parties. That is the reality of a real civil war. There are no just two sides. EkoGraf (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Reply to reply As a matter of fact if you read what Iraqi interior minister said it is something else as some presented it here. Even if we forget on Iraqi-Iranian-Assad ties, he spoke of Syrian foreign fighters returning from Iraq to Syria. However ignoring that your examples of Lebanon civil war and Bosnian war are also reasons why it shouldnt be added. Especially in case of Bosnia, foreign fighters (jihadi or not), including those from network such as AQ fought on both sides of the conflict, yet AQ is not included as direct participant. In Lebanon in 17 years of war thousands of foreign fighters partook in conflict, once again from many groups. Yet, we do not include them. Infobox is reserved for primary combatant in the conflict, who have strongly established presence in such conflict and I saw no source claiming such thing about AQ which wether some like it or not is a shadow of its former self. That for example was said by Iraqi minister who said that power of AQI has diminished and was dealt even larger blow when them allied foreign fighters started returning to their countries of origin to participate in their local conflicts (Yemen, Libya, Syria). I dont really think that so far we are in the situation when can we include it, after all argument here is if AQ has none, insignificant or minor presence in this conflict. EllsworthSK (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - I think we need substantial evidence of al Qaeda fighters in Syria before adding this. Even if foreign fighters are coming from Iraq, Jordan, and/or Libya, it's unclear that they're affiliated with al Qaeda. And just because al Qaeda says they support the uprising doesn't mean they're actively committing resources. Even if al Qaeda is selling arms to the rebels, too, that doesn't make them combatants. It also needs to be quite clear that al Qaeda and the Syrian opposition are allied, something I have seen literally nothing reliable to support, or else the infobox will have to be changed to reflect three sides in the conflict. The idea of Christian and Druze members of the opposition being in league with al Qaeda, or the secular U.S.-allied governments of Turkey and France working to support an insurgency affiliated with al Qaeda, strains credibility somewhat. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Libyans have been involved, Hezballah has been involved, communists and MB have all been involved. We don't even know how many AQ fighters are in Syria, what if there is only a few dozen? We have no info about the reality of their involvement. I7laseral (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - This seem rather speculative currently, and on top of that I am opposed to info-box creep.XantheTerra (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Although I already stated my reasons above I shall sum it up here. First of all, so far I saw no RS which would claim that AQ or AQI is direct participant of this conflict. Seconly it´s a plain speculation and thirdly I would point out 2011–2012 Yemeni uprising article. Although in Yemen there are large AQAP operations, although AQAP controls several cities in Yemen and is waging war there for years we did not include it in infobox. And lastly it strikes me as hypocritical that on same basis consensus was reached that IRGC and Hezbollah wont be included into infobox, despite having more than enough reliable sources simply because all sources are based on more or less speculations and second-hand reports while here, where we dont even have thouse RS, we would do opposite. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Support - The opposition to the Assad regime in Syria is reportedly heterogeneous and I've read a number of sources, including the BBC, stating that Islamic fundamentalism is a component. The difficulty of this decision is that inclusion or exclusion are editorial choices that will influence whether readers choose to "support" or "oppose" one faction or another (even though this shouldn't be our concern). I think we can all agree that our policy should be to accurately represent the reality of the situation, whatever it may be, and not our personal feelings about the ongoing conflict. -Darouet (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think this is an important point, and I think it's quite clear we have a number of editors active on this page and related content who have a very overt political agenda. We're seeing some editors who opposed including Iran and Hezbollah as combatants on the government's side now calling for al Qaeda to be added post-haste as a co-belligerent of the opposition, and vice versa...obviously agenda-pushing shouldn't be an issue here, but unfortunately, for some editors, it is. I think all this might just benefit from a wait-and-see approach until we get real concrete evidence that Tripoli or Tehran or the jihadists of Hezbollah or al Qaeda have committed fighters to this conflict. Right now, we have sources claiming the involvement of all four, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus among them on any of them. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Top US intelligence officials today confirmed that Al Qaeda was likely behind the recent Aleppo sucide bombing. Source here . And in response to what Kudzu1 said, I'm all for adding Iran and Hezbollah to the infobox if needed in the support group.EkoGraf (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"United States intelligence officials told The Washington Post that while the bombings in Syria have the hallmarks of al-Qaeda operations, they have found no conclusive link to al-Qaeda or its Iraqi affiliate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/top-general-assassinated-in-damascus/2012/02/11/gIQAfYPn6Q_story.html". Its still only speculative. They have no intelligence on the Aleppo bombing, they just think that Syria is a likely target, and therefore is likely being targeted by alqaeda. Also enough of these Comments guys. If you want to argue, there are two discussions above. I7laseral (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about voting. Adding comment is a perfectly reasonable form of discourse in this section. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply to I7laseral. That report you pointed out to, which was speculative, is from six days ago. The one I pointed to is from yesterday and cites officials who gave the statement yesterday, not a week ago, and it wasn't speculative this time around. Further one of the top officials that was cited who confirmed Al Qaeda is infiltrating the opposition is none other than Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper. EkoGraf (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Suggestion, if we do vote alqaeda in, lets add it to the infobox of the Syrian civil war/operations, if such a page was to be established, ie wait until we make a legitimate civil war page, then we add alqaeda/hezbolah/iran. Of course i oppose putting any of them in at all. I7laseral (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support with qualification I think both "sides" here are right and both sides here are wrong, on Al Qaeda. I actually agree with Sopher99 on one aspect: it is unfair and inaccurate to call Al Qaeda part of "the" opposition. They are very much at odds with peaceful, sometimes secular, and other elements of the opposition. In this dimension I disagree with ChronicalUsual. However, that does not mean that Al Qaeda is not _a_ party to the civil war; they are just not part of the wide-ranging peaceful opposition nor of the main SNC etc. But they clearly have a significant, and seemingly growing role (more bombings, statement by al-Zawahiri, etc.

And no, we do not "have to accept U.S. government claims on everything else if we accept one U.S. analyst (or 3 of them) on Al Qaeda". What is significant is that parties that normally disagree strongly, and who often have very different sets of claims, facts, and analysis, actually agree on Al Qaeda's presence in Syria. That's why the U.S. analysts (more than just one) statements on AQI in Syria are significant. (Also no, we wouldn't be "forced to list Iran in fairness, if we list Al Qaeda" No, we list what has been documented. Al Qaeda, has been., so include it. If/when Iran sending thousands is documented, then include it, until/unless documented, don't. Similarly, if/when U.S. covert agents on teh ground are documented (note: recently reported that western armed forces were combatants in Libya unlike official claims) then add those; unless/until documented, don't. Al Qaeda has been repeatedly found by usually opposite analysts, to be on the ground and active in not one but many attacks.)

The truth and reality is that there are more than two key players. (If someone thinks, "we can't admit this, because this will help Assad" they should remember some history of how many extremist groups have grown, Islamic extremist ones included, because of the "in order to win against we have to turn a blind eye to these extremist fundamentalists" policy) The challenge is to use _wording_ and also maybe _structure_ (more than two sides) in a way that makes it clear that Al Qaeda is NOT part of the peaceful opposition nor part of (name this or that) armed rebel groups/coalitions. That is the goal. So are they are key participant? Yes. But I think it's ok if we make clear that (for now at least) they are not as major a participate as some other groupings (this was true in Iraq were some groups were in 2005 and are today, significant and worth listing, but not as powerful or dominant as other groups and coalitions, for example) Harel (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment More specific than the umbrella "Al Qaeda" (and per entry it should be "Al Qaeda" not one-word 'alqaeda') but rather AQI, "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" is a party to the conflict, according to reports. Unless/until other Al Qaeda grops are involved, we should list the more specific group AQI. Hopefully this is tacittly understood by voters above, but this is worth clarifying explicitly. Harel (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - as long as there is no solid evidence of actual military involvement in the conflict of other parties than the Syrian government and the Syrian opposition, those other parties should not be included in the infobox. And I deliberately say military involvement because countries and organizations that merely provide vocal support to either of the parties (such as Hezbollah) do not belong in the infobox in my opinion. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply Hardly just vocal support, numerous sources have been provided recently that Iran and Hezbollah are providing material support for the government while Al Qaeda is providing limited material support to some elements of the FSA over the Iraqi border. EkoGraf (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Those sources merely contain anecdotal evidence, along the lines of "members of the Syrian opposition report that they witnessed Iranian arms being supplied to the government". Meanwhile, the countries / organizations allegedly providing material support deny the accusations. There simply is no solid evidence of any foreign military support of any of the parties. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The al-queeda chief in Lebanon has just said that altough they support the uprising, they are not operating on the ground in Syria. . It is also important to note that the Syria opposition has "catergorically rejected" any al-queeda interference in their uprising. Since there is absolutley no solid evidence for this claim, why should we include it? I've seen many more sources for Iran interfering in Syria, to be perfectly honest.Goltak (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

So far we are not even on track to reach consensus on the vote, and even if the vote passed with concessus, we would include Iraqi alqaeda as suspected, and a third party to the conflict. Sopher99 (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Lebanon Al Qaeda chief was talking about his group specificly, the Lebanon Al Qaeda, while most reports cite the Iraqi Al Qaeda as being behind the infiltration of the opposition, weapons smuggling and suicide attacks. EkoGraf (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral - seems to me Al-Queda is a very vague group defention of various radical Sunni organizations, however it is clear that those groups take part in the conflict and have their own agenda, not within the scope of the FSA rebel targets.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, but they should be mentioned in the intro and under armed resistance. FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Okay, Al-Qaeda supports the uprising, what it is then? Why should this fact leads to a conclusion that Al-Qaeda is part of the uprising? This is meaningless, and no RS support it. Yes, there is an armed resitance in Syria other than FSA, but it is not related to any political nor non-political group --aad_Dira (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC).

Section blanking

@Sopher, can you please clarify what is your reason for blanking several of the sections in the article (refugees, sectarianism etc.)? Just because there is an expansion article doesn't mean you should completely delete summary info on the main page! It damages the encyclopedic quality of the article.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The section clearly says that if the reader wishes to find info on that sections subject, they should see the main page. I only did such things to reduce to bytes from 190k (which is only 10k short from the intolerable 200k). The Sections are still easy for the readers to navigate, as the main page links are clearly seen. Full transparency, just with the extra feature of having to click a link to see the requested info. Sopher99 (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If you did this in order to avoid the 200K threshold, then there is justification to what you did, however we can later find those sections completely deleted by irresponsible users, who don't like "empty sections". I think at least several sentences are required. Anyway, in order to avoid the 200K problem we should better switch from civilian conflict template (which has become huge and unreadible) -> military conflict template and summarize "reactions" and "parties", to reduce tertiary subsections. What do you think?Greyshark09 (talk) 06:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue is not whether we should use a civilian conflict infobox or a military conflict one, it is about what information we put into it. If we simply change templates but leave the content as is, the size will not change. That being said, I think the first candidate for a cutdown is the casualties section (in the infobox, that is). Instead of detailing which particular number is claimed by which organization, something along the lines of claims vary between 3,895 and 8,325 would suffice. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

There should be a summary at least, having empty sections simply isn't done anywhere else, it is bad practice. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. Changing the infobox template would reduce the size of the article. Consolidating sources would also be wise. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are really important sections about the conflict blanked and receive small, useless articles, while the bloated "reactions" section remains? It should really be the other way around, reinstate the relevant sections about the issue itself, and keep out the reactions. Same with "media coverage", irrelevant in comparison with actual events. FunkMonk (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, there were references used in the removed sections that are also used elsewhere in the article. Could someone find them and put them back in the appropriate places? Jeancey (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The gigantic "domestic reactions" section was just reinserted, even though it now has its own article. It should be trimmed down to at least half of its current length. FunkMonk (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It was I who reinserted it, even though I agree that it is too long in its current form. However, simply deleting the whole section from the main article with a link to the subpage is not the way to go at it. The most important facts from the section should remain in the main article. Otherwise, crucial information (such as the fact that a constitutional referendum has been planned for 26 Feb) would not be in the main article at all. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this has to be done by someone. If it isn't done, having an empty or very small section is almost better than having the whole thing. It's currently about one third of the article! FunkMonk (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Biased intro

The intro is heavily biased towards the intro. It goes into minutiae of too many claims that can only be traced to the "Syrian Observatory of Human Rights" (and people complain about article size?), and treat them as fact. Also, it leaves out any mention of sectarian motives, direct foreign backing of the opposition (Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia), and leaves out any mention of the well-established importance of Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda in the uprising. It should also be mentioned that the Syrian government has the support of pretty much all the world, apart from Western Europe and a bunch of fellow dictatorships in the Arab world. The controversy over facts should also be mentioned in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Response

I totally disagree. The intro actually has a big paragraph about the FSA, but we had to take it out to conserve space.

1 - The opposition armed elements belong on a military page, not the intro.

2 - The LCC, Syrian general revolution commission, Amnesty international, Arab League, UN, Human rights watch, and avaaz, all play a big role in claiming the civilians deaths. not just the SOHR>

4 - We already include the government's claim that armed gangs and "terrorists" are responsible.

5- The uprising entirely centers around the Syrian governments killing of protesters and subsequent rebellion. The Syrian governments claims are conventionally. considered ludicrous and unreliable.

6- The Syrian govement does not have support of the entire world, infact 120/140 nations who voted in the UN general assembly voted Against the Syrian government. Europe and America is alot less than 120 Nations. Another 10 Abstained, meaning no opinion.

I understand you are sad that bashar assad may fall, but does not call for skewing thew lead if tripe of foreign conspiracy claims. Sopher99 (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Lol at your last sentence. We don't need such accusations here, are you for example sad that Saudi Arabia, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood won't take over Syria if Bashar stays? Ridiculous. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)\

Quite. I have been in love with Mossad and Alqaeda ever since they faked the moonlanding. Sopher99 (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

That's at least more realistic than bombing your own strongholds and sabotaging your own pipelines. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Syrian government wants to vindicate its claims, as international support plays a key role in its survival. Bombing yourself is not so uncommon. How else do you think Saleh got put in the hospital? Additionally the pipelines are heating oil pipelines. The destruction of pipelines is a form of punishment to the rebellious neighborhoods. Sopher99 (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Even US government officials admit Al-Qaeda was behind the bombings. The US is not exactly pro-Assad, so that says a lot. Until now, every ridiculous claim made by the opposition has been take as fact, I'm happy to see it is ending. Rest in pieces, Egyptian babies, Amina al-Arraf and Zeinab al-Hosni, lulz. FunkMonk (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Getting kind of long. Talk to me on my talk page or yours if you want responses now. Sopher99 (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Our discussion is irrelevant, bottom-line is that this article really needs balance. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

And you got what you wanted. You added Alqaeda and sectarianism to the intro. Sopher99 (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not what I wanted, it's what this article needed to be balanced. FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Back to the article, 1: Why? 2: They all take their info from Syrian opposition activist, not neutral observers, so their numbers are inherently biased. 3: Then why is it filled with international responses? 5: Yes, but only if you live in the West or in a Sunni-Muslim dictatorship. Coincidentally, I see you're notably absent from the Bahraini uprising page. Democracy? FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

1: It´s common, same was done in Libyan civil war article. 2: What observers? It takes also info from United Nations and Arab League which is up to date the only single and sole body which sent observers there. You know, the guys you says are the only one together with west against Assad. And meanwhile let´s ignore how much support did he get in UNGA. 3: I don´t get this one. 5: Balant POV pushing. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

2:Neither the UN or the Arab League make independent death-tolls. 3: See Sophers point 3. 5: See Sopher's point 5. FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

2 - The arab league doesn't, but the UN does. 5. The Uprising centers around the killing of protesters. Even Journalists on the ground from CNN to RT to The Guardian agree on that. The only reason why i am not on the bahraini uprising page is because the bahraini uprising page does not get the same degree of POV pushers like you. The Syrian uprising page also alters faster, due to being a quasi war. For your information, i am anti khalifa and anti saudi arabian monarchy. I am anti Maliki, anti Moroccan king, and anti Omar Bashir as well. But none of that matters because this is wikipedia. Sopher99 (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

2: Their sources are Syrian activists, not independent UN observers. 5: Show me a source stating this then. The uprising has been sectarian and violent since the early days (Salafists have been wanting to overthrow the regime since the 70s), the Western media simply didn't acknowledge it until after several months. Same with the Al-Qaeda bombings. They're too reliant on Gulf Arab news-networks that are inherently biased toward Shias. That's why this site at least has to be balanced. And the reason why the Bahrain page doesn't receive more Western White Knights is that the media simply doesn't report on anti-regime events in the Gulf countries. And I'm about as POV-pushing as you, but at least I try to be balanced with my edits and refrain from name-calling (unless provoked, of course). FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Im done with the conversation. Sectarian and salifi involvement pales in comparison to the ongoing protests, and the subsequent rebellion against the regime killing machine. I won't be responding to your direct questions towards me anymore, unless i feel a need to. Sopher99 (talk)

Too bad. So much for free speech and democracy. FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Crushed by the Assad and Khalifa. Sopher99 (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was Skeletor. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It was a response to skelator, but the western propaganda machines didn't believe them. Only the Eastern propaganda machines did. Sopher99 (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I read this in the intro, "Al-Qaeda has voiced support for the uprising, and its Iraqi branch is believed to be operating against the regime." ... I think that needs a source ASAP or else it needs to be taken down. Usually such groups flaunt about their accomplishments and involvements, so finding them shouldn't be hard, if not it should be taken down. There are also two statements in that one sentence, 1) Al-Qaeda supports the uprising, 2) Iraqi branch is operating in Syria ... sources for both are needed!207.112.63.146 (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Both issues are further explored in the article body, with sources and all. FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

• Hello all. Under NOTAFORUM, it may be helpful if editors keep from accusing each other of being pro-Assad or anti-Assad. As to the meta-issue, I concur (as I hope we all would) that the lede should summarize the text of the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is long over, no worries. Article is still too long, though. FunkMonk (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• I think this issue relates to the above, so I'll park it here. First off -- both the lede and the ibox are meant to be summary in nature; much information routinely appears in both. With that as background, I'm not sure I agree with the reversion here, of me by Sopher, on the edit summary rationale in part of "We already put it in the intro." Though perhaps I'm missing something on our long talk page -- the rest of the stated rationale was "Not agreed to, vote did not pass" ... and frankly, I'm unclear what vote that refers to. In short, my view is that it is appropriate for items such as that one to appear in both the lede and the ibox, and the fact that it is in the lede is not reason for it not to be in the ibox (perhaps just the contrary, in fact). Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

File:2011-12-19 SNC Members at first congress in Tunis (iPhone).jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2011-12-19 SNC Members at first congress in Tunis (iPhone).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:2011-12-19 SNC Members at first congress in Tunis (iPhone).jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Supreme State Security Court

Hi ... Supreme State Security Court is in the infobox, twice. Uncited. I had redlinked its first appearance, thinking I myself perhaps or perhaps someone else would at some point write an article on it. Someone deleted the redlink.

My questions are: a) does it belong in the ibox?, b) if so, should it be in the body as well (it is not reflected in the body)?, and c) if it is reflected in the article, does anyone object to it being redlinked?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not uncited. The second time that it's mentioned in the infobox it is accompanied by this reference confirming its abolition. I hadn't realized that the abolition of the SSSC is not in the body, but it would indeed be proper style to include anything that's in the infobox in the article body as well. Regarding the red link: I think the proper order would be to first write the article and then create a link to it. Red links in the infobox should be avoided imho. Until the article has been created, it would be best to just leave Supreme State Security Court as non-hyperlink, plain text. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.

As a general rule, wp:REDLINK provides that it: "is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable." If the subject is in the infobox of this article, no doubt it is notable.

Is there a policy that says redlinks should be avoided in the infobox?

But whether or not it is redlinked in the infobox, if it is reflected in the article body (as we agree it should be, if it is in the infobox -- which, after all, is meant to be summary in nature) it should be redlinked there I would think, per the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to nip it in the bud

We should really not put claims like this into the article unless we have solid confirmation: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/defected-syria-general-vows-return-fight.aspx?pageID=238&nID=14223&NewsCatID=338 A Turkish (partisan) newspaper quotes an FSA (partisan) source for a ridiculous claim. FunkMonk (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference

There is a difference between the Ba'ath Party (dissolved in 1966), the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Syria Region (a regional cell) and the Ba'ath Party (Syrian-led faction) (a transnational organisation). Stop mixing these things... --TIAYN (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Move to Civil War, 2nd discussion

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the prominent arguments for this are that there are insufficient reliable and famous sources calling it a civil war. However this may change in future. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

2011–2012 Syrian uprising → Syrian Civil War – By now it is time to look past the sprachregelung rubbish that led to the early February 18-18 split decision. This is clearly no longer a sequence of (peaceful) demonstrations. There is a 40,000 strong rebel army operating in the country, and on the other side there's the Syrian Army. This is a textbook civil war, and nothing else. It certainly wasn't a year ago, but by now it clearly is. So let's give this article an appropriate title. --bender235 (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm gonna stop you right now. Do you have many, clear, reliable sources that are calling this a civil war? Not that it might become a civil war, or it looks like its going to be a civil war, but clearly state "civil war in Syria" or "Syrian civil war" or something along those lines? Without that, there is never going to be consensus to change. Jeancey (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The current title is just as conjectural, so invalid argument. --bender235 (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not at all.

• Syrian uprising brings out the hypocrisy in everyone
• Syrian uprising: Veteran war reporter Marie Colvin killed in Homs, a city ‘waiting for a massacre’
• Face Of Syrian Uprising: 'Arm Rebel Force'
• Syrian Uprising

This is just a FEW of the sources that use the term Uprising. Similar sources that use civil war would be needed to change the title. Jeancey (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This is news media terminology chosen for ambiguity and sound. Just like they call every Space Shuttle mission "Space Shuttle flight" instead of the correct term, like "STS-135". Some in academia began describing the Syrian situation as civil war, tho (e.g., Parasiliti 2012).

Anyway, besides from international intervention, where is the diffence between what is happening right now in Syria and what happened a year ago in Libya (where, nice coincidence, politics and media refrained from calling the spade a spade for months, too)? --bender235 (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes - EllsworthSK (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

For the international perspective, some German headlines (FYI: "Bürgerkrieg" means "civil war" in German)

• Die Zeit: "Bürgerkrieg in Syrien weitet sich aus"
• Frankfurter Rundschau: "Bürgerkrieg in Syrien: Rotes Kreuz verhandelt über Waffenruhe"
• taz: "Bürgerkrieg in Syrien: Sanktionen und Hilfsgüter"
• Der Stern: "Bürgerkrieg in Syrien: Kofi Annan soll Blutvergießen beenden"
• Der Spiegel: "Ultimatum im Bürgerkrieg: Syrien-Gruppe will Waffenstillstand erzwingen"

Or is this just about anglophone news sources? --bender235 (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner did not like the civil war label because it equated the violence: “There’s no equality between the terrible violence being perpetrated by Assad’s forces against innocent protesters and some isolated incidents of violence among the opposition.… There’s no way to equate the two, which, in my view, is implied in using the term ‘civil war.’ ” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murhaff (talk • contribs) 14:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - I strongly oppose for the very reason that it started as a peaceful demonstrations, and so it continues till now in many area in Syria. Additionally, most of the +8000 casualties were unarmed civilians killed by Syrian regime forces during peaceful protests, do you call this a civil war? When the Syrian people are calling for the unity of their nation and country in every single demonstration, do you call this a civil war?

"A civil war is a high-intensity conflict, often involving regular armed forces, that is sustained, organized and large-scale." This is not the case of Syria! Please don't underestimate the braveness of Syrian people by calling their uprising a "civil war". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.247.214.163 (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - just because there is a rebel army and many casualties doesn't make it a civil war, maybe a rebellion. Several uprisings throughout history caused much greater devastations than current Syrian. Anyways, the conflict doesn't withstand the definition of civil war - there is no alternative government system.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

What alternative government system was there in Algerian civil war? Or Lebanese civil war? If you want to say that it were self-running government system in communities and areas controlled by one combatant in the war same can be said about several parts of Syria, especially northen Idlib governorate which is out of government control and Sky News and CNN correspodent which were there said that villages and towns are run by local governments. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

@Greyshark09: name one of these historic "rebellions" that weren't civil wars, where there was a rebel army involved, consisting of tens of thousands of soldiers. I'd be curious to know. IMHO the Syrian situation is more of a civil war than Libya ever was. And for historic perspectives, it closer resembles the Spanish Civil War than the Romanian Revolution of 1989. --bender235 (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Although I really fail to see the point behind this vote, we have still opened discussion about the move right on this page. As for my reasons, I stated them thrice already, nothing changed in that aspect. EllsworthSK (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not the commonly used name, and that's all that counts here. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Per my reasoning from the earlier votes. This is getting ridiculous, the civilians and journalists on the ground are calling it a civil war, but we are avoiding to call it a civil war cause the diplomats are avoiding to call it that. :P EkoGraf (talk) 21:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, not civil war. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. This article is interesting. Apparently the academic view may be that it is a civil war. But some non-academics have a different understanding of what the phrase means, and think otherwise. While this week Time is a headline with term "the Syrian Civil War", as are RSs such as the Council on Foreign Relations and MSNBC. Then again, the Moscow Times is anticipating a future name change for this page. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, among other reasons. We shouldn't call this a civil war until official diplomatic groups (the UN, Arab League, NATO, etc.) commonly refer to it as such. Oren0 (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Like "Syria heading for civil war, Arab League claims"?

BTW: per sprachregelung of the German government, there is no "war" in Afghanistan, because Germany does not engage in wars. This is just to explain to you that diplomatic language regimes aren't always based on facts, but on politics. --bender235 (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That beautifully illustrates why it shouldn't be renamed. "Heading for" simply means that it is a possibility or an end, not that it is a current fact. FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support But I can already tell you that it is likely that it will be rejected. Why? Because Misplaced Pages is made in a way where a number of people can block anything if it does not suit their agenda, even if all the facts and the source are present. The problem is not about what it is exactly, because it is technically a civil war. The problem is that some people just don't want to admit it for political reasons. --FavorLaw (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what they call sprachregelung. --bender235 (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Media is not calling it a civil war. The hama massacre was not called a civil war, nor was the siege of aleppo called a civil war. Both had more killing than this.Sopher99 (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Five opposed to changing 2011-2012 Syrian uprising to Syrian civil war. Three support changing 2011-2012 Syrian uprising to Syrian civil war. just trying to make it easier to count those who support or oppose the the name change. :) 70.179.36.58 (talk) 05:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's four "supports". Don't forget the nominator (yeah, that's me). --bender235 (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't understand why is it supposed to become a civil war directly after a weapon is rised, the armed revolution = Civil war theory is false, half of the world revolutions were armed, and that does not make it a "civil war". Look at 1956 Hungarian Revolution article for example, or any other pre-1969 revolution article on Misplaced Pages. It started as a peaceful demonstrations, then turned armed to defend itself against the regime, i don't see where is the civil war --aad_Dira (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC).
• Oppose because still, no reliable sources are saying that the conflict is a civil war right now, they merely warn that it is sliding towards / in danger of becoming a civil war (or similar wordings). I would also propose a speedy procedural close as it has been only two weeks since no consensus emerged in a discussion on exactly the same subject. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In that case its been sliding and been in danger for a really long time. :P EkoGraf (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I myself haven't !votes (as of yet), but feel I should point out that it is a mis-statement to say that "no reliable sources are saying that the conflict is a civil war right now". See, e.g., my post above, which reflects only a small number of the RSs that are doing precisely that.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Iran has been in danger of an israeli strike for quite some time now, sliding is sliding.I7laseral (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I listed a half a dozen sources naming the Syrian situation a "civil war", so put these false claims on hold, please. And by the way, the fact that is was a split decision two weeks is just the more reason to continue debating this. --bender235 (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. It is a civil war. Two armed groups of the same nationality are waging all out war against eachother for control of the country. the SNC is the political face of the rebels, the FSA the armed wing, plus the FSA controls territory now, especially in Idlib and Homs. Just because some media and politicians dont have the balls to call it what it is, there is no need for us to do the same. Finally, at what point does an uprising become civil war ? Kspence92 (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.207.39.147 (talk)
• Oppose. Violent revolution is violent revolution. Massacre is massacre. Dozens/Hundreds of such incidents are not historically referred to as civil wars. The majority of media does not call it a civil war yet.I7laseral (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. As most have stated already the media and the world players have not yet began to regularly call what is happening a civil war. Until that time we should leave it where it is and at the current name. --IvanTortuga (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It's in its early stages, but it is already a civil war. The Free Syrian Army is building up strongholds in Idlib province. -Metron (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is not a civil war. The size of the free syrian army ranges between 1000 and 40 000 soldiers (according to the Wiki page)!!! Clearly no one knows what is going on and propaganda is the only driving force causing your "credible sources" to publish these numbers. I will say this for the millionth time, question/critique your soruces before believing them let alone making them the basis of an encylopedia.72.53.153.82 (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Please tell me, what would be a credible source for the Free Syrian Army's existence? Obviously Homs doesn't look like a war zone to you. So do they have to arrange a military parade on Times Square to convice you? --bender235 (talk) 10:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There are no credible sources and that's the point. The existence of the Free Syrian Army is not in question but its size is. I think the name "Free Syrian Army" is what causing this hype. When it first formed it began with a group of 7-10 defecting soldiers and they called themselves an "army". Homs is not a war zone nor is any other part of Syria. The only way to know the "truth" is to have direct contact with people living in Syria. Conflict arises everyday in every part of Syria but this does not mean it has developed further away from an uprising. Escalation of the conflict does not necessairly lead to escalation from uprising to civil war. The two terms are not part of the same continuum. The whole conflict could end with the regime falling or the people falling and it could still be called an uprising. An uprising is most accurate term for describing this conflict as it unfolds now. A war is far more severe and would most likely stop day-to-day activities like school, work, traffic, etc... as has happened in Libya. In Syria students still go to school, empolyers are in control of their employees and everyday acivities did not seize. The occasional school closures and work lockouts are best described by an "uprising" and not a war. Please; the fact that we have to have a discussion about whether there is a WAR in a country clearly indicates that the situation is being over-exaggerated. Not once in the history of the world did I hear of opinions conflicting about the presence of a major military campaign (as major as a war) in a country. If the situation really escalates to a civil war then I can assure you that the article will almost re-title itself instantaneously.72.53.153.82 (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"Homs is not a war zone nor is any other part of Syria" Please, type any number you want and I give you that amount of first hand reliable sources which were in Homs and described it as genuine warzone. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. It is obviously a civil war, there is one army fighting against another. Not calling it a civil war just because diplomats and politically correct media are are refusing to call it a civil war is outright ridiculous! --93.139.141.198 (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not much has changed from just a month ago. The opposition still doesn't have a permanent grip on any Syrian territory, a seat of government, or any clear chain of command. This is still just a rebellion rather than a full-fledged civil war. --Tocino 13:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Despite the lack of change from a month ago, this is no longer an uprising in which a group of people are rebelling against the government, either to quickly gain dominance or be squashed. As a result, it has become a civil war, as both parties bring a significant number of forces to the table. Schlitzer90 (talk) 20:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Reliable sources are not calling the event the Syrian civil war. A google news search indicates that the New York Times , Wall Street Journal , Washington Post , Guardian , BBC , CNN , and Al Jazeera are not commonly calling the event the Syrian civil war but rather the Syrian uprising. --Guest2625 (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - What about the sources listed nearer to the top of the discussion? --93.142.213.138 (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The situation in Syria is clearly a civil war, many media sources have confirmed this, as the ones listed nearer to the top. It's clear the UN is just being weary of the situation before calling it a civil war. There is open combat between two organized and armed parties, the government of Syria and rebels of Syrian nationality. Common sense would say this is a civil war. --165.199.1.40 (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Per others.--Goltak (talk) 9:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Per others. —stay (sic)! 10:08, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• support both sides of the conflict have a base to work out of, and significant "formal" armies, in addition, both forces, have diplomatic ties....-Samcat — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsamcat (talk • contribs) 16:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Per others. Zenithfel (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support How is this even up for debate?98.245.216.254 (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Because the majority of reliable sources don't call it a civil war, and just because fighting occurs does not make it a civil war. Take the yemeni uprising, hama massacre, siege of aleppo, and the iraq war for example. I7laseral (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not yet decided, but do note that the RSs are -- as reflected above, in many diffs to top-flight RSs -- certainly increasingly describing it as a civil war. To this point in the above discussion, it seems that editors are evenly split as to whether it should be termed a civil war or its original title, which it was given before it developed into the present level of hostilities.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I wouldn't necessarily say it's a civil war until there are more reliable sources calling it such. I did a google search for "syrian civil war" and not much specifically talking about the uprising was shown. Not to say it isn't a civil war under some circumstances, we felt the same way about Libya, but with Libya it began to be called a civil war and not just a revolution or uprising by the media around April or so, whereas right now there are few (that I have seen) which are calling this the Syrian Civil War. I would support this once I see more sources call it this, as per WP:COMMONNAME. JPECH95 02:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Medias are divided, ABC of Spain and El Pais, consistently have been calling it "war" http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2012/02/26/actualidad/1330222932_669904.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.251.117 (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Basically all German sources are now calling it Bürgerkrieg, too, see for example , , . --bender235 (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the German Misplaced Pages, though. Most English-language sources are not calling the conflict a civil war. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

One might speculate that "uprising" and "war" share the same word in the German language, or somewhere along those lines. Sopher99 (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

@TaalVerbeteraar: per NPOV, Misplaced Pages should avoid Anglo-American focus. Syria is not a US-topic, so surveying international media is called for.

@Sopher99: some German words: Krieg means "war", Bürgerkrieg means "civil war", Aufstand means "uprising". There is no ambiguity. --bender235 (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The English-language Misplaced Pages guideline WP:COMMONNAME requires the name to be common in English-language sources, though. I imagine that the common name in German media may satisfy German Misplaced Pages naming guidelines, but it doesn't meet English-language Misplaced Pages ones. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. This is a quote from WP:COMMONNAME where the naming convention for articles is discussed: wikipedia "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." The reliable sources that matter for naming an English article are English language reliable sources. This is not a German wikipedia article. If someone wants to rename that German article "Bürgerkrieg" they should go to that article and have a discussion on its talk page. --Guest2625 (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The German sources were an additional example for the international perspective, after User:70.30.251.117 mentioned Spanish sources. Also, its pretty ridiculous to say other language versions of Misplaced Pages may call this "civil war", but the English Misplaced Pages is not affected by this. After all, it's the same event all these articles are refering to. And let's not forget Anglophone media is refering to the Syrian situation as "civil war", too: "Syria is not slipping into civil war. It’s already there. By any reasonable standard of the term – numbers dead, the strength and organisation of rebel forces, or the intensity of violence – Syria’s conflict has grown into more than an insurgency" FT.com That article, btw, nicely explains the political motivation behind the prevalent sprachregelung, calling this an "uprising" although it is, in fact, not. --bender235 (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you for the discussions it's useful to mention what different language sources are saying I was just trying to emphasize what the consensus about naming articles was on wikipedia. I guess the convention for naming articles could be changed but that would be whole other debate. Personally, I don't think Misplaced Pages should try to lead the news in naming a subject. --Guest2625 (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Hillary Clinton, someone who has nothing to gain from making the Syrian situation look better than it is, said this weekend: "I think there is every possibility of a civil war". Note how she did not say that it is a civil war at the moment. Just that it might become one. Let's stop claiming that civil war is now the name used by authoritative sources. It isn't. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The FSA do not represent a tribal, religious or racial sector of the society vs others. The picture is clear: a totalitarian regime decided to annihilate the public movement for freedom and democracy using the security forces and military body. The body cracked as the ideology of the army was nullified when weapons were raised in the face of the personnel's own people. SHAHINOVE (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The Syrian uprising is a movement by majority of Syrian people, not any particular group, Sectarian against longtime oppression by Assad regime and his AlBaath party. Syrian Uprising is motivated by establishing freedom and equality to all Syrian people. FSA,which just a starting entity and not supported by any country, is still incomparable by its human, ammunition, and financial capabilities with the well organized official Syrian army loyal to Assad regime, which reportedly supported by Russia and Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawsanoor (talk • contribs) 21:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose on structural grounds -- The WP:COMMONNAME arguments remain sound. However, it is possible that a civil war will emerge/is emerging. If so, the earliest events remain unequivocally an "uprising," while the delineation between uprising and civil war will be tricky. We should consider two things: how to give proper coverage to the military confrontation between the Assad government and the Free Syrian Army; how to situate the overall conflict, including its civilian aspects. "Uprising" is at least neutrally applicable to both armed and unarmed state actors, which is convenient for the overall title.

The POV concern that labeling government shelling of unarmed civilian enclaves a "civil war" is a real one. So too is the POV concern that we must describe all armed actors as armed actors. Let's keep uprising for now, but start thinking through a resolution to this.Carwil (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2012‎ (UTC)

• Support This is clearly a civil war like the Libyan Civil War. 96.252.230.56 (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

• oppose for all above stated reasons. It seems like every couple of weeks this is brought up weather or not any thing in the news media has changed in terms of name used. This seems to me a classic case of "if we push the same thing over and over again, eventually people opposing will get tired and stop opposing."--Found5dollar (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I'm reminded of BBC footage from Kashmir many years ago, and the backround was that in the past 24 hours both Indian and Pakistani sides had suffered both military and civilian casualties, and in the background I could hear at least four different calibres of fire, ranging from heavy artillery through mortars and machine guns to small arms. The reporter said straight faced "there are grave fears that if the shooting doesn't stop soon, it could lead to war". There is a civil war in Syria, and we all know there is, and if we're prevented by some Misplaced Pages rule from calling it that then the rule is wrong and we need to IAR for now and try to fix the rule. And I'm not convinced that the rule does prevent it; We do call the Vietnam War that, despite the fact that when I was of draft age at least, I was consistently told that it wasn't a war but that the country needed me to fight it anyway. Andrewa (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

20 oppose changing the title of this article for various reasons from 2011-2012 Syrian Uprising to Syrian civil war. And 16 support changing the title of this article from 2011-2012 Syrian Uprising 2011-2012 to Syrian civil war for various reasons. And included in those 16 support is the one support from the nominator. I didn't forget you this time bender235. :). . I support changing the title of this article from 2011-2012 syrian uprising to Syrian civil war for the following reasons, 1,000+ dead due to the syrian uprising . More than that have died but 1000 plus dead is one of the academic definition to help classify something as a civil war. As well there are confirmed reports of syrian rebel groups such as FSA and others holding small amounts of territory in syria. But that territory is sometimes seized back by the Syrian army and the FSA can or if they are willing will seize it back if they can. And that territory inevitably switches quite often from FSA or rebel control back to Syrian Army control. The FSA and others and groups if Im not mistaken want Assad's government gone. My next point in my argument is that reliable sources are split on whether to call the conflict in Syria a civil war or not. Some media sources call it a civil war. Some political leaders or govs. are warning of a possible civil war. And some sources are warning that Syria is slipping into civil war. While I support changing the title of this article i have a proposal to make. I propose we close this discussion on changing the title on this article and reopen the discussion on March 15 2012. The date that the syrian uprisng started last year. And we wikipedians are clearly divded over this rather sensitive issue and article. Note while I support changing the title of the article I did not include in the 16 support my support. Maybe by March 15 2012 most reliable sources will be call the Syrian Uprising the Syrian civil war. Will just have to wait and see. :) 70.179.36.58 (talk) 05:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of how the outcome of this is, it would be nice to end up with some criteria that define a civil war in the eyes of majority here. You know, something like "if (a), (b), and (c) happens, then definitely we have a civil war in Syria and it should be called such". Personally, I like Tocino's criteria: "permanent grip on any Syrian territory", "a seat of government", or "any clear chain of command". --bender235 (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No, we will not be making up our own criteria because that would be original research. The only really valid criterion for calling a conflict a civil war or not is whether it is the common name in reliable sources. By the way, the mandatory seven days of discussion are now over and there is clearly no consensus for a name change. I suggest this proposal can be closed. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, there is no consensus. Thanks to people like you reducing WP:COMMONNAME ad absurdum. I just thought before ending this discussion for good we could at least get something useful out of it. --bender235 (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Please elaborate on your allegation of "reducing WP:COMMONNAME ad absurdum". The reality is that there are virtually no reliable sources that describe the current situation as a civil war. I think using this as an argument for not renaming the article is neither absurd nor a reduction of the common name policy. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the article should be moved to Syrian uprising because in this time, it is biggest Syrian uprising. I oppose to move to the Civil war. --Nolanus (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, Any fighting that has happened has been sporadic and non-organized. You cannot call it a civil war as of yet. Maybe in the near future but not now. Pass a Method talk 09:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, While Misplaced Pages has an article on Civil War it does not have one on "uprising" distinctly only a re-direction to "Rebellion". So if disagreements linger on Misplaced Pages has pull/write an distinctly "uprising ongoing internal violent conflict" article or rename this bloody affair simply Rebellion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.40.254.60 (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

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

Lede

"The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should normally be no more than four paragraphs." Our lead is currently 7 paragraphs long. Someone might be interested in combining paras and/or trimming. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reduced the lead by throwing out unnecessary details that belong elsewhere in the article. But it still need to be reduced a little.--FavorLaw (talk) 11:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The last three paragraphs would be removed - the "concessions" do not play a big role, especially because they mean nothing and that this is a quasi war. The last two paragraphs which talk about international stuff can be removed, as we talk about that at length in the sections below. Sopher99 (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Some opposition supporters editors are opposed to reduce the lead, it seems. --FavorLaw (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No we are opposed to reducing th lead the in the manner you brought forth, especially after we established a talk page on such. Sopher99 (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You are again violating wikipedia rules by reverting edits without any justification. You already failed with your abuse of speedy deletion on another page where you broke as well the rules of moving a page, and where you started to remove sourced contents after all your attempts failed miserably. I fear that you do not see Misplaced Pages as an encyclopedia that needs improvement, but as a tool to advance your opinion on a given event. --FavorLaw (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Its the total opposite. You intentionally removed all the information about civilian deaths and sieges and left only the sectarian, concession, and free syrian army component, even though we were not done with his talk on this talk page. Sopher99 (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I considerably reduced the concessions and international reaction parts, as well as the detailed casualties. The global figure of casualties by UN stayed, but now need for categorization in the lead. That belongs in the page, not in the lead. But of course, if it is not written by the syrian opposition, there are big chance that you will oppose it. --FavorLaw (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you reduced everything that you decided was what makes the regime "look bad". I suggest that the last three paragraphs only get cut, as the last three paragraphs are the least significant, as they are the least domestic and have the least effect on the uprising. Sopher99 (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you are unable to provide any solid exemple of what should be in the lead and that I left out, speaks volume. --FavorLaw (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I just said, everything in the lead is necessary other than the international and concession components. I'll be out for the next hour. Don't do anything that you would regret. Sopher99 (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

After Harassament with you following me on various page just to revert edits, you are making threats. Misplaced Pages has a policy against such behavior and you should show some moderation before I have to use the appropriated administrator board, which I don't to use, because I am not a child who hides behind some authority. --FavorLaw (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

My solution to the Lede

The 2011–2012 Syrian uprising is an ongoing internal conflict in Syria. It is a part of the wider Arab Spring which began in December 2010, a wave of social upheaval throughout the Arab World demanding greater political freedom and an end to autocracy. Public demonstrations began on 26 January 2011, and developed into a nationwide uprising. Protesters demanded the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, the overthrow of the government, and an end to nearly five decades of Ba’ath party rule.

The Syrian government deployed the Syrian Army to quell the uprising, and several cities were besieged. According to witnesses, soldiers who refused to open fire on civilians were summarily executed by the Syrian Army. The Syrian government denied reports of defections, and blamed "armed gangs" for causing trouble. Beginning in Summer 2011, civilians and army defectors formed fighting units, which began an insurgency campaign against the Syrian regular army. Violent clashes took place across the country, increasing by the end of 2011, and the insurgents unified under the banner of the Free Syrian Army and fought in an increasingly organized fashion.

The uprising has sectarian undertones, as the opposition is dominated by Sunni Muslims, whereas the regime is dominated by Alawite Muslims. Bashar al-Assad is supported by segments of the Syrian population, including minorities such as Alawites and many Christians, and elements of the Sunni upper and middle classes. The Kurdish minority is split; some support the uprising and others are neutral. The Syrian opposition denies that sectarianism plays a significant role in the uprising.

Verification of death-tolls and specific events have been hard to verify due to the Syrian government putting restrictions on foreign journalists. According to the UN and other sources, since the beginning of the uprising, up to 8,000 people, including 1,900–2,900 armed combatants, have been killed in total, many more injured, and tens of thousands of protesters have been imprisoned. Over 400 children have been killed as well. Another 400 children have been reportedly arrested and tortured in Syrian prisons. Additionally, over 600 detainees and political prisoners have died under torture.

The Arab League, the USA, the EU states, the GCC states and other regional countries have condemned the use of violence against the protesters. However, military intervention has been generally ruled out by foreign powers. The Free Syrian Army and other local opposition forces are believed to be aided by Al-Qaeda's Iraqi branch. The Arab League suspended Syria's membership over the government's response to the crisis but sent an observing mission as part of its proposal for peaceful resolution for the Syrian crisis.

I believe this shortens the lead to wikipedia standards while also not leaving out the important things. Sectarian and iraqi alqaeda are still kept in, as well as the free syrian army and the deaths toll. All major points about the page are kept in, and so we have an unbiased but wikipedia standard lead. Sopher99 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to hear reception and thoughts about my solution. And not just by FavorLaw. Sopher99 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sopher99 - thanks for your suggestion regarding the Lede. This article has obviously been contentious because of the very different perspectives brought by different editors; I actually think that the result has been surprisingly good, in the sense that a lot of research and sourcing has gone into providing a great deal of information, and also important perspectives, for interested readers. The lede presents the greatest complications because it is hard to quickly convey the appropriate nuance that would be provided by reading the entire article.

I think one terribly important thing missing from the present lede is the international context of the conflict in Syria. That context will be written about in history books and is part of a more "long-term" perspective; it helps readers avoid getting lost in details, and rather makes those details comprehensible. The regional tension between the United States and Iran is something that deserves mention. It is also part of a more global tension between the United States and Russia, and China, though this larger point may not belong in the lede. I don't think the 2nd paragraph of the lede should describe details of Syrian regular army summary executions, but not summary executions carried out by the Free Syrian Army, and all of this before a broader context is given. I abhor what the Assad government is doing and I want it documented here. But I'm also not a party in this conflict and I can see that mentioning these details, but not the greater international context in which they've occurred, actually advances an argument that's not explicitly stated.

I will not be a philistine and say that events do not sometimes themselves advance an argument. I also don't think that someone shouldn't edit an article because they may be a partisan of the conflict they're seeking to describe. But it really should be our project to write a careful and a neutral article, and if that's done properly, readers will be able to come to their own conclusions.

One thing I do like about your proposed lede, among other things, is the brief mention of internal divisions within the opposition. This has been widely reported on and is not simply a matter of Al-Qaeda or extremist groups. Can we perhaps bring in more international context to this article, perhaps another sentence or two about the complexity of the opposition, and mention, in the second paragraph, the regional conflict between the United States and Iran? Thanks for your help so far. -Darouet (talk) 16:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

New proposed lede with considerations on advice given by Darouet

The 2011–2012 Syrian uprising is an ongoing internal conflict in Syria. It is a part of the wider Arab Spring which began in December 2010, a wave of social upheaval throughout the Arab World demanding greater political freedom and an end to autocracy. Public demonstrations began on 26 January 2011, and developed into a nationwide uprising. Protesters demanded the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, the overthrow of the government, and an end to nearly five decades of Ba’ath party rule.

The Syrian government deployed the Syrian Army to quell the uprising, and several cities were besieged. According to witnesses, soldiers who refused to open fire on civilians were summarily executed by the Syrian Army. The Syrian government denied reports of defections, and blamed "armed gangs" for causing trouble. Beginning in Summer 2011, civilians and army defectors formed fighting units, which began an insurgency campaign against the Syrian regular army. Violent clashes took place across the country, increasing by the end of 2011, and the insurgents unified under the banner of the Free Syrian Army and fought in an increasingly organized fashion. However, the civilian component of the opposition fighters do not have an organized leadership.

The uprising has sectarian undertones, as the opposition is dominated by Sunni Muslims, whereas the regime is dominated by Alawite Muslims. Bashar al-Assad is supported by segments of the Syrian population, including minorities such as Alawites and many Christians, and elements of the Sunni upper and middle classes. The Kurdish minority is split; some support the uprising and others are neutral. The Syrian opposition denies that sectarianism plays a significant role in the uprising.

According to the UN and other sources, since the beginning of the uprising, up to 9,000 people, primarily protesters, along with 1,900–2,900 armed combatants, have been killed in total.. Many more have been injured, and tens of thousands of protesters have been imprisoned. Over 400 children have been killed as well. Another 400 children have been reportedly arrested and tortured in Syrian prisons. Additionally, over 600 detainees and political prisoners have died under torture.

The Arab League, the USA, the EU states, the GCC states and other regional countries have condemned the use of violence against the protesters. China and Russia has expressed reservation in condemning the regime or applying sanctions and embargoes, believing that such methods could escalate into foreign intervention. However, military intervention has been generally ruled out by foreign powers. The Free Syrian Army and other local opposition forces are believed to be aided by Al-Qaeda's Iraqi branch. The Arab League suspended Syria's membership over the government's response to the crisis but sent an observing mission as part of its proposal for peaceful resolution for the Syrian crisis.

I should make note that i will not be logged in for the next hour or so. Sopher99 (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts

Whatever is done to the lede -- and it can be a combination of pruning, editing, and paragraph-combining -- I think it would be good to bring it to 4 paras.

Also, I think it would be good to strip out (and, if appropriate, embed in the text below) all the footnotes in the lede that don't support any highly controversial statements. It is enough per our policy for the refs to be in the text below, as the lede is summary of that text. And here, IMHO, the heavy use of footnotes in the lede is part of what makes it difficult to read.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

New lede with regard to suggestions by User:Epeefleche

The 2011–2012 Syrian uprising is an ongoing internal conflict in Syria. It is a part of the wider Arab Spring which began in December 2010, a wave of social upheaval throughout the Arab World demanding greater political freedom and an end to autocracy. Public demonstrations began on 26 January 2011, and developed into a nationwide uprising. Protesters demanded the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, the overthrow of the government, and an end to nearly five decades of Ba’ath party rule.

The Syrian government deployed the Syrian Army to quell the uprising, and several cities were besieged. According to witnesses, soldiers who refused to open fire on civilians were summarily executed by the Syrian Army. The Syrian government denied reports of defections, and blamed "armed gangs" for causing trouble. In late 2011, civilians and army defectors formed fighting units, which began an insurgency campaign against the Syrian regular army. The insurgents unified under the banner of the Free Syrian Army and fought in an increasingly organized fashion. However, the civilian component of the opposition fighters do not have an organized leadership. The uprising has sectarian undertones, as the opposition is dominated by Sunni Muslims, whereas the regime is dominated by Alawite Muslims. The Syrian opposition denies that sectarianism plays a significant role in the uprising, and the Syrian government has yet to mention sectarianism.

According to the UN and other sources, since the beginning of the uprising, up to 9,000 people, primarily protesters, along with 1,900–2,900 armed combatants, have been killed in total.. Many more have been injured, and tens of thousands of protesters have been imprisoned. Over 400 children have been killed as well. Another 400 children have been reportedly arrested and tortured in Syrian prisons. Additionally, over 600 detainees and political prisoners have died under torture.

The Arab League, the USA, the EU states, the GCC states and other regional countries have condemned the use of violence against the protesters. China and Russia has expressed reservation in condemning the regime or applying sanctions and embargoes, believing that such methods could escalate into foreign intervention. However, military intervention has been generally ruled out by foreign powers. The Free Syrian Army and other local opposition forces are believed to be aided by Al-Qaeda's Iraqi branch. The Arab League suspended Syria's membership over the government's response to the crisis but sent an observing mission as part of its proposal for peaceful resolution for the Syrian crisis.

Sopher99 (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

It needs to be mentioned that the government still has considerable support within the country, from minorities and Sunnis from the middle class and above. FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• comment I would add {{who?}} to the sentence: "The Free Syrian Army and other local opposition forces are believed to be aided by Al-Qaeda's Iraqi branch.". I would also wonder if it is really a notable claim to be mentioned in such a summary for the article, it sounds rather like people wants to make Al-Qaeda and the Muslim brotherhood looks like standing behind every anti-regime movement in the Arab world. Personally, I have heared so many times about the armed gangs, terrorists and conspiracies trying to make chaos in Syria, but this is the first time I hear about Al-Qaeda too --aad_Dira (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC).

"Who" is US officials. It is thoroughly sourced in the article, so such a tag is unneeded. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on whether or not to include alqaeda can be found above, where we actually voted on whether or not to include alqaeda. The vote ended up with no consensus to include alqaeda in the infobox. But we conceded that it would ok to include iraqi alqaeda in the lede. If you believe otherwise, there are discussions for that above. I7laseral (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• comment the sectarian sections should not be included in the lede, the lede should only focus on daily occurrences, such as civilian deaths, insurgency, and international response. Sectarianism and concessions are not daily news. I7laseral (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

While I agree that the concessions are worthless, particularly if this is going to be a civil war, I think we should at least mention sectarianism. Sopher99 (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The entire conflict is sectarian to its core, it is what it will be remembered for, and is more important than any single occurrences. FunkMonk (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The conflict is not sectarian any where near its core. The conflict owuld be remembered as being an Arab Spring protest which was ransacked by the regime and subsequently faced a rebellion. Sopher99 (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is cute how some Westerners still see this as some kind of proletarian revolution. No one in the Middle East ever bought it, apart from maybe the few Leftist who unknowingly paved the way for the Islamists. This is all about increasingly Islamist populations rising up against secular governments, everyone knows that nothing will change economically, and nothing has. We are getting some nice theocracies, though. The situation in Syria is just a tad bit more complex, due to the fact that the government is secular and belongs to a sect the majority believes to be heretical. FunkMonk (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Islamism can coexist with democracy. I think the biggest test, once Assad and the rest fall, will be in how these countries integrate Islamist sentiments with the burgeoning desire on the part of the people to play a role in selecting their governments and making their laws. But perhaps this is a discussion for elsewhere. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably a discussion for elsewhere. But yes, Islam and democracy can coexist (see Turkey), but not Islamism, as sharia is inherent to it. FunkMonk (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is a matter of sharia's interpretation and implementation. I think the popular sentiment among, for example, Tunisian and Libyan Islamists is that the likes of the Saudis, Iranians, and al Qaeda (spanning the political and sectarian spectra) have the wrong view of sharia and are unnecessarily violent and repressive. But it's certainly an open question as to what form of government emerges and how rule of law is handled, and it may well be a different result in Tunisia than it is in Libya than it is in Yemen (if Hadi cedes power eventually) or Egypt (if SCAF cedes power eventually) or Syria (if Assad is deposed eventually). In the meantime, I think the best we can do is present as best we can a factual picture of what is happening in Syria, as in Libya or Yemen or Bahrain or elsewhere, and try to avoid our edits being colored by our politics. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the daily occurences reasonning. Most important characteristics have to be noted. But just in case, there are daily sectarian tensions. And the constitutional vote of tomorrow is very important.--FavorLaw (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The concessions are not significant as Half of the towns and villages across syria will not participate in them, Deir Azzor, Idlib, Hons, The damascus suburbs half of Hama and half of Daraa city and every town in Daraa province will not participate in the referendum. Even in government controlled areas turnout will be low, and we will have nothing that will give us hope that the referendum numbers reported by the government are even going to be true. The referendum is a joke designed to try to keep Assad in power, the same way that lifting the state of emergency changed nothing. Sopher99 (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be good if you could use opposition language elements less heavily. --FavorLaw (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

How is the constitutional "referendum" important? Homs, Hama, Idlib, Daraa, and many Damascus suburbs, and even parts of Aleppo, among other parts of the country, are under siege. You think anti-government Syrians - Sunni, Druze, Shia, Kurd, or Armenian - will get the vote while their neighborhoods are being shelled? We include information reliable sources report is going on. Your editorializing and pontificating about Assad's magnanimity in allowing a rigged referendum while the country is sharply divided by violent conflict and many Syrians are afraid to venture from their homes for fear of being shot by government snipers or shelled by government tanks, isn't helpful here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It is important because it is a big change. For the moment the situation is deadlocked because the opposition wants to seize the power by force and not by democracy. If the Syrian Army successfully defeats the guerilla, the opposition will have to accept the political reforms. That's why there are 2 faces in the syrian policy..--FavorLaw (talk) 09:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no democracy in Syria right now. Even if the constitution is adopted and the regime genuinely relaxes the Ba'ath Party's control over the state (which I doubt will happen; refer to the case of United Russia or the People's Action Party in Singapore), elections won't be held until 2014. President Assad has plenty of time to rig the vote simply by killing or driving into exile enough of the people who oppose him, and that's before threatening the jobs of civil servants who support the opposition, as his counterparts in Venezuela and Zimbabwe routinely do. The result of the constitutional referendum should not be given WP:UNDUE weight, considering the opposition figures quoted in reliable sources expressly say it will not change anything and they regard it as meaningless. At most, it merits a few words in the paragraph of "concessions" Assad has offered that the opposition has dismissed as meaningless. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Result

The consensus shows that my latest lede is best. I will take FunkMonk's suggestion to re-add minority support for Bashar Assad as well. Sopher99 (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You are very generous with yourself in calling it a consensus. Anyway, the result of the referendum will have to be added.--FavorLaw (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The result can go n the constitution referendum section. But its not going into the lede. Sopher99 (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The adoption or reject of a new constitution would be a major development, so it will be in the lede. You don't have any monopoly in writing the lede, contrary to what you seem to believe. --FavorLaw (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No-it won't go in the lede. We all know that 90-99% of the voters are going to vote yes. All pro assads are going to vote, few anti assad people are going to vote. The draft constitution is meaningless, but goes in the consensus section. I don't have a monopoly. Darouet, Funkmunk, Epeefleche, I7laseral, Kudzu1, and you are the ones who contributed to this talk, and everyone but you agree that this is a good lede. Sopher99 (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It does not mean the lede is frozen. As the event goes it will be modified. And let them talk about the inclusion of the result of the referendum instead of speaking in their name. You are gifting yourself consensus and talking like you are 6 people in the same time. Enough is enough. --FavorLaw (talk) 14:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The referendum is not considered important by the those that participate in the uprising. This is the 2011-2012 Syrian uprising. Not the 2011-2012 Assad endorsement.This referendum literally changes nothing. The current constitution already forbid human rights abuses. We wouldn't even know how sincere the "poll results" are, even if it was somehow below 90%. Sopher99 (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope that you realize how biased your explanation attempts are. To conclude, a constitution is the main text of law and is the main attempt at national reconciliation done by the governement toward non armed opposition. It has to be mentioned, the syrian governement has done two important things, military operations and anew constitution. Not mentionning it would be pro opposition bias. --FavorLaw (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Lifitng the state of emergency was also considered pretty important, and it turned out it wasn't. We are mentioning the "new constitution", just not in the lede. Sopher99 (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the lede looks great now, though I'd like to see a source for the Syrian government not mentioning sectarianism in the conflict. I'm pretty sure it has. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

While I don't think sectarianism plays any big role in the uprising compared to the personality cult, censorship, arbitrary arrests and secret police, I guess well leave it in. I don't think the Syrian goverment ever mentioned sectarianism, as it is not in their interest. If they publicly announce on state tv or to the world that "People are only protesting/rebelling to get rid of the Alawites" the admit that

a - There are protesters/Syrian rebels, and consequently not terrorists or foreign plot

b- Assad lost at the very least half of his support, and subsequently its not a foreign conspiracy.

c- They risk losing widespread support in the sunni arab world (like Algeria or Mauritania).

Its not worth admitting sectarianism as it will heavily devalue the sense of "national unity for Bashar Assad" the government is trying to employ.
I7laseral (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've reworded that section of the lede slightly in the hopes it will flow better and be less confusing for readers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk page too long

Can we take out the talk section where Harel and I debated over the cia coup? its been concluded and its just makes the talk page unnecessary long. I7laseral (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages get put in archives so it doesn't matter how long the page is. Sopher99 (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

syrian revolution

i suggest to move this page name to syrian revolution and dnt need 2011-2012 .because what happiend in syria is a ryal revolution and no a civil war or upirising.

Can't officially name it Syrian revolution into regime falls. Sopher99 (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

• I am removing this and changing it back to the civil war discussion. Please don't change the move discussion in the middle. If you have an opinion on the name of the new article, you can add it to the discussion above. When the discussion above is finished, you can start a new discussion with a new name, but please don't change the name of the target article in the middle of a discussion. Jeancey (talk) 18:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Good, don't let those interruptions happen.Greyshark09 (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Good source on casualties

Questioning the Syrian “Casualty List” Tiamut 16:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

No, not a good source.

1- al-akhbar is not considered reliable or a source by the most common media. Once more its lebanon based, (lebanon at the moment defends the Assad regime more fiercely than Iran)

2- It is true that some civilians who die are pro-regime. Doesn't mean they aren't civilians.

3- The article goes into elaborate detail critiquing the SOHR without even mentioning the larger and more prominent death toll giver the LCC, which does in fact have 100's, if not thousands of members on the ground. The LCC are the leaders of the demonstrations, as evident by youtube videos which say "LCC - protest in Douma" or "LCC protest in Idlib" which have paper being held up by the camera man confirming such. I have even seen video of the FSA interacting with the LCC members.

4- The true death toll is not smaller, but rather larger than reported. You can not know everyone who dies after all. Tens of thousands of videos confirm thousands have died. There must be over 5000 funeral videos alone. Even more important, the UN and Human Rights watch death tolls usually line of the SOHR and LCC, and are usually only difffent by a few hundred and because of the time lapse of the release of the reports (LCC releases figures daily, while the UN tends to be about one every two weeks) Sopher99 (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Still, the source is useful in pointing out that the VDC (closely affiliated with the LCC) military deaths list (which the UN said counts only defectors) in fact also counts loyalists, example the loyalist general killed is on their list (I checked and compared). Also, one more thing in the article caught my eye, the thing about the opposition listing the Palestinians killed by the Israeli military in their protests in the Golan Heights as being the casualties of the uprising, this begs the question of possible excess deaths from elsewhere. At the very least the inclusion of the Palestinians on the oppositions lists warrants a mention in the article. As for the possible real death toll as you put it, we will see in the future, time will tell, as more sources become available. But again I think we should be careful around high death tolls considering what happened in Iraq and Libya. In Iraq at one point in 2006 it was claimed that almost a million Iraqis were killed, but later it was found the number was closer to 130,000 after the US pullout in 2011. And in Libya, the rebel government claimed in August 2011 that 50,000 people were killed, but backtracked and said, the very next month, 25,000 were actually killed. We should never forget the fog of war. EkoGraf (talk) 23:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The difference is is that in Iraq 2006 there was barely any internet usage whatsover, and in America alone the war was opposed by 60% of the population, excluding the 95% opposition to the war in every other country. That means a whole lot of bias against the USA military, especially considered American were already mad at the military for making things up.

In Libya there was no internet and no LCC type organization. The NTC counted all Gaddafi held prisoners as assumed executed, but they were only 1/3 right, as only 1/3 of the prisoners died in prison. In Syria, unlike libya 75% of all prisoners taken captive are released within a month. In both cases the margin of error is much smaller for Syria, but I agree about the fog of war.

The generals and colonels killed could also be sympathizers, but not defectors. The slightest show of sympathy for the opposition in the army gets you killed. The fact that many generals and colonels have been killed by the insurgents may actually indicate the insurgents are closer to the Syrian army than we realize. In fact now the Syrian army appears to be intentionally messing up, so much so they resort to artillery shelling instead of straight out storming like they have for the past 10 months. In November Rastan was captured by the FSA, only to be retaken a day later after a straight out military assault. For the past month rastan has been fsa controlled and repulsing each attack. Zabadani could not be taken without an agreement by the FSA to withdraw in exchange for no artillery shelling. My point is that the Syrian army is sabotaging itself, and many unknown sympathizers are amongst the death toll. Shabeeha are executed and then have their bodies thrown into the street. It wouldn't be hard for actvists to mistake a dead shabeeha for an executed civilian. Sopher99 (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

New group fight against the Syrian Security Forces

It was revealed today that the group responsible for the suicide bombings in Syria is the Al-Nusra Front to Protect the Levant . In consequence, I added it to the belligerents. --SuperMaher (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Editors are advised to be aware SuperMaher is a suspected sock of the blocked pro-Assad partisan User:ChronicalUsual a.k.a. User:FavorLaw a.k.a. User:Aginsijib: -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Syrian War Map Required

I'd like to suggest that some kind of war map(including different area controlled by different forces,cities on war and so on.)Why can't we make a war map as good as that of 2011 Libyan Civil War?cbcdqe (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Example:

We don't, for the simple reason that this is not a war, at least not one comparable to the Libyan civil war. In Syria, rebels do not really control much, if any, territory. In Libya, the rebels secured a 'liberated city' (Benghazi) early on from which they could expand their 'liberated' territory. The Syrian rebels do not even have that; their only stronghold (Baba Amr) is being taken over by the government as we speak. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

This map has been made in the past as an attempt to present the situation of the uprising (not civil war), but it is not updated and it has a wrong borderline of the Quneitra governorate. If fixed and updated it could be a good infobox map at the head of the page.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No no no. Every city including Aleppo, Latakia, and central damascus and Qamishli has FSA presence. The only cities in the entirety of Syria which does not contain rebels are Tartous and Sweida.

There is no point in putting a map if the battle for Syria is neighborhood by neighborhood unlike city by city in Libya. It is very misleading, as you really don't know who controls what in Syria. Sopher99 (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

When we decide to call this a civil war then maybe we can put a map. Sopher99 (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• We should have a map, the sooner the better, that indicates at minimum: a) major battles; and b) the neighboring countries.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

400 children in the lead

"Over 400 children have been killed" - This is unacceptable because there is no attribution to the allegations. The United Nations bureaucrat Navi Pillay did not herself carry out an investigation in Syria confirming this, but merely cited the allegations of the rebels: "Activists and human rights groups are concerned the brutal crackdown in Syria isn't just against anti-regime protesters, but against medical workers who try to treat the wounded. They also say that at least 400 children have died in the violence." I haven't read the whole article yet, but already I sense strong biases against Syria. So it's very misleading to present the origin of these allegations as the United Nations when it's the rebels and their spokesmen.

The reliability of the United Nations and their bureaucrats is not absolute, as there is strong criticism that at times they function as supporters of the policies of certain regimes. This is the Syrians' criticism of the UN burreaucrat Navi Pillay:

The Foreign and Expatriates Ministry stressed in a letter to the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights Syria's absolute rejection of the allegations made by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay regarding Syria which add up to the history of the Commissioner in dealing with Syria from the beginning of events.The Ministry pointed out that the Commissioner has been turned into a tool in the hands of some countries targeting Syria and ignoring the terrorist crimes committed by the armed groups, while Syria provided all available information to clarify the situation, yet Pillay turned a blind eye to facts. The letter said that Pillay chose this path despite having clear evidence of the non-credible nature of the information she receives from sources known to be working against Syria, trying to cover up the fake numbers and information she published.

SadSwanSong (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin on the Syrian foreign ministry claiming that Pillay is part of the "foreign conspiracy". I'll just leave things short and simple. The Syrian government is a ludicrous bunch of Saddam Hussein figures, nothing more. They have no essence of objectivity or sincerity. Sopher99 (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No one here cares about your personal opinions about politics. Syrian media represents a noteworthy point of view on the conflict and its material can stay provided that they are properly attributed. SadSwanSong (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is the phrase "foreign conspiracy" in the article I cited above?? Please do not misrepresent others' work! The idea that the United Nations' bureaucrats have behaved unfairly is hardly a controversial, fringe viewpoint. SadSwanSong (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Such allegations should be reflected in the body (not just the lede), and at minimum in the body should be properly attributed.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

United Nations figures are considered to be reliable source, Syrian government statements are not. And you are not showing any king of WP:NPOV That settles it. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

EllsworthSK, will you actually read the discussion instead of making such misinformed remarks? The United Nations did not state that 400 children were killed, but cited reports originating from "activists" in Syria about 400 children being killed. This information DOES NOT originate from the United Nations, but it comes from the Syrian anti-government "activists". So instead of saying "According to the UN, 400 children were killed", the proper NPOV way to present this would be "Syrian activists opposed to the government claim that 400 children have been killed." I am getting tired of repeating myself. SadSwanSong (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

EllsworthSK, all sides need to be fairly presented, including what the Syrian media reports. Your approach amounts to censorship. SadSwanSong (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:SECONDARY before going any further. United Nations are reliable source, wikipedia uses secondary sources mostly given how primary sources can be used for POV and thus United Nations quoting human rights organizations make it reliable secondary source. Morever you used unreliable source (SANA) as a point for your argument in which you argued against reliable source. Ignoring all these matters can you quote part of Navi Pillar or United Nations report which says that number of children casulties was just copy-pasted withou any research by United Nations? I would be really surprised if you could do that. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I cited SANA to explain the Syrian state media and government's position, which makes such additions in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies. Nothing in Misplaced Pages's rules supports your suggestion that we cannot use SANA as a source.

This story confirms the fact that the United Nations did not determine based on its own investigations that 400 children have been killed. They merely reported what Syrian "activists" have alleged, similar to Ban Ki-Moon's stupid remarks about the Libyan government using planes against civilians.

UNICEF says it has credible information that up to 400 children... Marixie Mercado is UNICEF’s Spokesperson: “There are reports of children being arbitrarily arrested, tortured and sexually abused while in detention. UNICEF does not have access to the affected areas of Homs and cannot confirm the impact of the attacks there, but there are credible reports, including from international media." SadSwanSong (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

No, you disregarded United Nations estimated casulties by using unreliable source. UNICEF is credible organization and reliable source. Your next remarks are plain POV pushing and that goes against wikipedia policy. If you want to include government respons to United Nations claims be my guest but your POV pushing by adding same credibility to UN and SANA goes against WP:RS. You are also bordering with this discussion on WP:OR may I add because you presented no reliable sources for your claim (which misteriously copies those made by Syrian government) that UN just copy-pasted numbers from SOHR and other activists (disregarding fact that international media used by UN are mostly considered to be RS as well) without any research. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the first paragraph of the lead. In particular, saying that the event has been interpreted "by its supporters" as being part of the wider "Arab Spring". The Syrian government has a different interpretation of it and this is required to be inserted into the lead. Now that I have given the opening for it, I hope someone with a better knowledge of the sources will add that interpretation. In addition, I have added the "issues specific to Syria" caveat (refering obviouusly to past events, ethnic groups, religious splits, etc). Meowy 20:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources

There is the citation of a shadowy group called "Avaaz" for the allegation in the lead of over 600 people tortured to death. Observing some of Avaaz' stuff, a lot of their material is of a propagandistic, agitational character. While pretending to stand for human rights, they in fact encouraged massive violation of human rights in Libya with a "no-fly zone" and support for armed rebellion. They repeat the same gibberish of supporters of certain governments, such as the controversial and now discredited allegations about Libyan jets used against civilians:

As Libyan government jets drop bombs on the civilian population

Right now Qaddafi's forces are crushing the rebellion town by town and brutal retribution awaits Libyans who challenged the regime. If we don't persuade the UN to act now, we could witness a bloodbath.

In their rants about Syria, there are a lot of negative remarks made about Russia:

Take Action: Russia has supported the Assad family for decades and now Moscow is underwriting the violence in Syria by giving the army weapons and the regime diplomatic cover. But international pressure is slowly forcing Russia to change course. We can help.

And it turns out that Avaaz is actually a front group for George Soros: Avaaz was co-founded in 2007 by “Res Publica, a global civic advocacy group, and Moveon.org,” a George Soros-funded organization involved in ideological and political campaigns in the US.

So to conclude, this is a not a reliable source with its claims either being thoroughly attributed or removed altogether. SadSwanSong (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• The source you removed was a nytimes article, which is reliable. Jeancey (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Will you actually read the article instead of making disruptive suggestions about what it reports? No one said that the NY Times is unreliable. Rather, I said that one of the sources they cited, which is the Avaaz group that I scrutinized above, is not reliable. If we're going to report what Avaaz says, it should be from their own publications rather than cursory statements from the new York Times. The New York Times did not purport to make a factual assertion about 617 people being tortured to death. Rather, the entire article consists of one of their journalists, who was reporting out of Lebanon rather than Syria, summarizing a bunch of different reports and claims about what's going in Syria. The article cites allegations from a shadowy group called Avaaz: The group, Avaaz, also said that its researchers had gathered the names of at least 617 people who had died under torture in government installations since the beginning of the uprising against Syria’s president I then investigated Avaaz' background and some of their material, and concluded that they do no meet RS guidelines. SadSwanSong (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Avaaz is a trusted and efficient activist group. Unlike like the UN however, they don't sweet talk dictators. Sopher99 (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Avaaz is not trustworthy and is not reliable. For example

“The domain Avaaz.org attacked ...with more than 250,000 SMTP email protocols ” on August 6, 2011, according to the Israeli government Computer Emergency Response Team

"Avaaz has a 4.7 million dollar budget and has (indirectly) received funding from George Soros." SadSwanSong (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, please knock it off with the agitprop reflected in statements like "they don't sweet talk dictators" and "The Syrian government denies every last drop of what is being said in this page.". I am not here to argue about politics, but to improve content on articles.SadSwanSong (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And everythnig you are doing is one sided. I don't care where Avaaz gets its funding. Every organization from the Democrats/Republicans to CNN to General Motors to David Cameron gets funding from "questionable" organizations. Sopher99 (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I should also warn you that you are about to break the 3 revert rule. Sopher99 (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I will replace the Avaaz links for the children deaths with the UNicef ones. Sounds fair? Sopher99 (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You deleted the fact that Syria puts the death toll at 1300 security members and 2500 civilians. Syria disputed the allegations about 400 children killed, but you also deleted this. None of this is acceptable.SadSwanSong (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Stop adding false statements in the article. UNICEF did not say that 400 children were killed, but instead cited allegations originating from the rebels about 400 children killed. The Syrian Government disputed the UN's methodology and showed correctly that they take their claims from false reports coming from the rebels. --SadSwanSong (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the main issues here is your assertion that the rebels are issuing false reports, and your reasoning is that the government of syria is saying they are wrong. That is a terrible and extremely POV reasoning. Of course the syrian government is going to deny things that bad against them. Sure, the rebels are no doubt exaggerating their claims, but to say that they are 100% inaccurate because the other side in the conflict says so is 100% NOT ok. We don't make judgements about whether the information is reliable, only whether the source is reliable. If the front page of the BBC posted a story about how aliens from space were assisting the rebels, we would 100% put it in the article because the BBC is a reliable source. Does that make sense? Jeancey (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah uh - it came for sources on the ground, and not by the "rebels". Sopher99 (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The United Nations did not carry out investigations and do its own work in Syria about such claims, but merely repeats a lot of the unverifiable, sensationalist stuff coming from the rebels, sort of like Ban Ki-moon's reaction to the lies about Libyan civilians being killed by Libyan planes. I explained this above and showed clearly that the claim of 400 children comes from the rebels, who are euphemistically identified as "activists". Also note that even the western media repeatedly says stuff like, "we are unable to verify the reports". I'm not saying that this should be erased from the article, but that such claims must have their source attributed in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies. SadSwanSong (talk) 23:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You have no sources that the activists are armed rebels. Things are unverifiable because the Syrian government keep journalists away, and makes things very difficult (via minders and security) for any journalists that are there. "western media" admits when things are unverifiable. lease stop with your POV pushing.

The anonymous "activists" function as the propaganda instrument of the rebellion: they only report stuff that makes the government look bad. SadSwanSong (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes because when you are being slaughtered, you only have making the government look bad in mind when you report it.Sopher99 (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Just as a note, the rebels are just about as reliable at this point as the syrian government, so as a compromise, we can remove all of the claims that Avaaz makes, but we also should then remove every single one of the syrian governments allegations for the same reason. You can't pick the rebels as unreliable because you don't agree with them and then use syrian government claims instead. It's either all or nothing. Also, I would suggest reading WP:RS and WP:VNT. Jeancey (talk) 23:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that you're setting up a straw man because I never insisted that claims from the Syrian opposition activists be removed. Rather, I called for their claims to be clearly attributed and the sources identified. The statements "400 children have been killed", "over 600 tortured to death" are not acceptable under Misplaced Pages rules. The proper way to write this would be, "Syrian activists say that 400 children have been killed." My personal view is that the Syrian activists are being dishonest and pushing unverifiable, sensationalist propaganda to make the government look bad, but I don't try to remove everything they claim because that would provoke an edit war. And if Syrian "activists" are allowed to stay, then there needs to be a more thorough presentation of the pro-government point of view to make the article more neutral. SadSwanSong (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not propaganda. In 1982 40,000 civilians were strait out killed in Hama. The syrian government does these kinds of things. The Pro-goverment argument is the least neutral and the least verifiable out of all perspectives. Sopher99 (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The most reliable reporting of the Hama rebellion of 1982 places the death toll at about 1000, caused largely by the rebels. And a lot of people disagree with you, as they consider Syria's Government to do good things.

Please read Misplaced Pages rules: all noteworthy viewpoints about a topic need to be presented fairly. Your sentence about the pro-Syrian POV not being allowed sounds like a call for censorship. SadSwanSong (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Uh - no. The most modest death tolls in the Hama massacre place it at 10,000 dead. The Syrian government used a scorched earth policy. Please read more carefully too. I said "The Pro-goverment argument is the least neutral and the least verifiable out of all perspectives" Sopher99 (talk)

"The Pro-goverment argument is the least neutral and the least verifiable out of all perspectives" --according to whom? This sounds like your own personal opinion.

And please stop spreading false information about events in Hama. Read this Time Magazine article, citing reports of 1000 people killed SadSwanSong (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Compared to the dozens of reports that 10,000-40,000 were killed. The pro-goverment side is the least verifiable because journalists on the ground like Nic robertson and Marie Covin personaly confirmed the opposite of what the Syrian government says. It is the least neutral too, because it blames everything on a foreign conspiracy and have the most radical claims. Sopher99 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I read your time magazine article, VERY FUNNY "March 8 1982". Just 4 weeks after it occurred, and with no activists, no reporters, no internet no journalists on the ground, they say maybe 1,000 killed. Thats initial reports of deaths. Guesses. The most unreliable numbers there are. Sopher99 (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Ill be offline for the next hour. Sopher99 (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This is ridicolious. In support of 1,000 killed in 82 you quote 20 years old article from time when there was no citizien-journalism, no witnesses on ground, no independent medias on ground and Syria was winner of number one police state of MENA region award. However you disregard modern studies about the massacre which put number of casulties on 10,000 at least like for example Amnesty International or Rifaat al-Assad statements how he is sad that they killed only 38,000 people and if things went out as he planned 50,000 would be dead. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The reports of 1,000 killed came from western diplomats stationed in Syria, actually. Those are the most reliable, objective reports about what happened.SadSwanSong (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That´s bull, Robert Fisk later corrected his statement to 20,000 casulties, vast majority civilians. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Support for Syrian Government >>> Iranian support for Syrian government>>_Iranian_support_for_Syrian_government-2012-03-04T19:59:00.000Z">

I'd argue this section should be re-titled to reflect the content below it. It is all about Iranian involvement, so it only makes sense that the sub-section state "Iranian support for Syrian government." My edit was reverted with a rationale of "other support should be stated" but no meaningful support from actors other than Iran are included in the section. So the revert, IMO, was not justified. Wikifan 19:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)>>_Iranian_support_for_Syrian_government"> >>_Iranian_support_for_Syrian_government">

Well, it should be about general support, from Russia, China, Iraq, South America, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case then content about Russia, China, Iraq, South America (what countries?) should be included. The section is exclusively about Iran and Iran remains Syria's primary benefactor during this conflict. Will you support a revert until information about Russia/China/Iraq is introduced? Wikifan 20:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can see it is up to me to add info about other countries, so until I do that, I shouldn't complain. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

One brief sentence about Russia/China isn't enough to re-title the section. Russia and China's diplomatic support is already stated in the lead and international section. The "Support for Syrian government" is 99% about Iran. Iran remains the largest and only military supporter of Syria and Iranian military/sub-national groups have fought alongside the regime. Edit should be reverted and any meaningful content outside of what is already stated about China/Russia should have their own section. Wikifan 22:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The problem is simply that more info is needed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Funk, that isn't a particular persuasive argument. Like I said, the section is 99% about Iran. What you included about China/Russia was already stated in the article. If there is indeed "more info" then Russia and China should be in a unique section. Iran remains the focused point in that area, inserting one brief sentence about another country that is already available elsewhere in the article is just silly. Please feel free to create another section if you feel enough content exists - I'd say there isn't enough other than Russia's delivery of fighter jets to Syria but I doubt that relates directly to the conflict here. Policy supports my edits so I suggest you self-revert. Wikifan 23:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

1. ^ "Syrian Tanks Enter 'Protest Hub' Baniyas". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 8 May 2011.
2. ^ "Syrian army tanks 'moving towards Hama'". BBC News. 5 May 2011. Retrieved 20 January 2012.
3. ^ "'Dozens killed' in Syrian border town". Al Jazeera. 17 May 2011. Retrieved 12 June 2011.
4. ^ "'Defected Syria security agent' speaks out". Al Jazeera. 8 June 2011. Retrieved 21 June 2011.
5. Kreitner, Ricky (8 June 2011). "Syrian Army Turned Helicopter Gunships On Defecting Soldiers". Business Insider. Retrieved 21 June 2011.
6. "Al Jazeera airs call by defecting Syrian officer". Reuters. 7 June 2011. Retrieved 21 June 2011.
7. ^ "Syrian army starts crackdown in northern town". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 12 June 2011.
8. Sengupta, Kim (20 February 2012). "Syria's sectarian war goes international as foreign fighters and arms pour into country". The Independent. Antakya. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
9. "Syria's crisis: The long road to Damascus". The Economist. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
10. ^ Cite error: The named reference probeslams was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
11. ^ Cite error: The named reference 23dead was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
12. Arab League delegates head to Syria over 'bloodbath'
13. "Number as a civil / military". Translate.googleusercontent.com. Retrieved 6 February 2012.
14. "UNICEF says 400 children killed in Syria unrest". Google News. Geneva. Agence France-Presse. 7 February 2012. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
15. Peralta, Eyder (3 February 2012). "Rights Group Says Syrian Security Forces Detained, Tortured Children: The Two-Way". NPR. Retrieved 16 February 2012.
16. "UNICEF says 400 children killed in Syria". The Courier-Mail. 8 February 2012. Retrieved 16 February 2012.
17. Fahim, Kareem (5 January 2012). "Hundreds Tortured in Syria, Human Rights Group Says". The New York Times.
18. "NATO rules out Syria intervention". Al Jazeera. 1 November 2011. Retrieved 12 November 2011.
19. ^ Cite error: The named reference nyt-suspended was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
20. Kreitner, Ricky (8 June 2011). "Syrian Army Turned Helicopter Gunships On Defecting Soldiers". Business Insider. Retrieved 21 June 2011.
21. Sengupta, Kim (20 February 2012). "Syria's sectarian war goes international as foreign fighters and arms pour into country". The Independent. Antakya. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
22. "Syria's crisis: The long road to Damascus". The Economist. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
23. Arab League delegates head to Syria over 'bloodbath'
24. "Number as a civil / military". Translate.googleusercontent.com. Retrieved 6 February 2012.
25. "UNICEF says 400 children killed in Syria unrest". Google News. Geneva. Agence France-Presse. 7 February 2012. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
26. Peralta, Eyder (3 February 2012). "Rights Group Says Syrian Security Forces Detained, Tortured Children: The Two-Way". NPR. Retrieved 16 February 2012.
27. "UNICEF says 400 children killed in Syria". The Courier-Mail. 8 February 2012. Retrieved 16 February 2012.
28. Fahim, Kareem (5 January 2012). "Hundreds Tortured in Syria, Human Rights Group Says". The New York Times.
29. "NATO rules out Syria intervention". Al Jazeera. 1 November 2011. Retrieved 12 November 2011.
30. "Syrian army tanks 'moving towards Hama'". BBC News. 5 May 2011. Retrieved 20 January 2012.
31. Sengupta, Kim (20 February 2012). "Syria's sectarian war goes international as foreign fighters and arms pour into country". The Independent. Antakya. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
32. Arab League delegates head to Syria over 'bloodbath'
33. "Number as a civil / military". Translate.googleusercontent.com. Retrieved 6 February 2012.
34. "UNICEF says 400 children killed in Syria unrest". Google News. Geneva. Agence France-Presse. 7 February 2012. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
35. Peralta, Eyder (3 February 2012). "Rights Group Says Syrian Security Forces Detained, Tortured Children: The Two-Way". NPR. Retrieved 16 February 2012.
36. "UNICEF says 400 children killed in Syria". The Courier-Mail. 8 February 2012. Retrieved 16 February 2012.
37. Fahim, Kareem (5 January 2012). "Hundreds Tortured in Syria, Human Rights Group Says". The New York Times.
38. "NATO rules out Syria intervention". Al Jazeera. 1 November 2011. Retrieved 12 November 2011.

• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Syria articles
• High-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• C-Class Arab world articles
• High-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• High-importance sociology articles
• C-Class social movements task force articles
• Social movements task force articles
• C-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles