Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:43, 7 March 2013

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: 20 days

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

Template:Pbneutral

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Syria Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Arab world High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Middle East This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Middle Eastern military history task force

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propaganda

The Propaganda section read like propaganda itself....Until my edits, it was 100% about Syrian Government propaganda - ignoring all other propaganda. Harldy balanced guys !! Frenchmalawi (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And The sources you've used to introduce 'balance' look like rank propagnda pieces , not RS to me. you patting yourself on the back for saving the section looks laughable to me. Sayerslle (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're make it more balanced, at least do it professionally. The section now looks like a mess.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are you telling us about this. Clearly you gone ahead and fixed it yourself. Sopher99 (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sopher - Every edit on an article about an ongoing Civil War is likely to be controversial...because of all the politics involved. That's why I made the edit and provided an explanation....No one has actually questioned the substance of my edit (balance) though criticism (unfair, I think give that the main source currently listed is just a CNN editorial) has been made of the sources. But I am happy to take the feed back on board and I will update it with more sources. I think every one accepts it is currently a highly slanted one sided paragraph. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now added in further sources to address the criticism made:

• Russia Today (a major global news provider) reports about propaganda;
• The Guardian (UK) reportage on propaganda;
• Daily Star report which quotes the Syrian Minister for Foreign Affairs specifically claiming that the reports around Syria using chemicals on its own people were propaganda.

I think it’s more balanced now and well sourced. I think we also need to be careful. We have to say that “propaganda” is alleged...as not to do so ignores that one man’s propaganda is another’s fair comment etc. We can’t be taking sides. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Russia Today and Global Research are not reliable sources, and Stopwar is a fringe site. Daily Star is fine though. Sopher99 (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying CNN is acceptable but Russia Today is not ? If so, why are you saying that (CNN is currently referenced in the same section)? Do you only accept American/Western media sources ? Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I would add that Russia Today is an important source: it's correspondent has even interviewed President Assad as recently as November 2012...You would need to have good reasons to exclude it. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I am in fact saying that CNN is reliable while Russia Today is not. Russia Today is state-owned and government controlled, has no editorial review, and refers to one side of the conflict as terrorists. Its not about western or eastern. For example the Jarkata Globe is a reliable source and Indonesia is far far east. Sopher99 (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Man, then why we have the article Terrorism in Yemen?! Why we refer to one side of the conflict as "terrorists"?! If some media call one side of conflict as terrorists, it's definitely not reliable. 95.135.188.196 (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want an independent Russian source, try Interfax. Sopher99 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think your treatment of Russia Today and CNN is incredibly biased and unfair. I think it is politically motivated. I think this warrants separate discussion. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added yet more sources on this Section. It's really important that for balance it must explain that propaganda is being reported on all sides (Syria Gov., Rebels, and Foreign Govs.). There are now lots of sources referenced backing this up. It's pretty widely reported on. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Each source you put was either an editorial/opinion piece or a fringe site. In the case of the two Russia Today sources and the Daily Star sources, they speculated how chemical weapons preparation might be propaganda. We already have that written into the section. Sopher99 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Trying to balance the section is fine, but please don't use editorials. Not sure about RT.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Extreme care should be used with RT. Financed, run by the Russian state, and it's patently transparent what's going on there with the channel.HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Using such 'reasoning', extra care should be taken with reports from the BBC. For it could be said that this TV station is a Propaganda Arm of the British state. And yet, with Russia Today or the BBC or Fox, most people are aware of where they are coming from. The questioning of Russia Today could be seen as a disinformation drive - aimed at deflecting attention away from False Flag attacks. Since it is patently clear what is going on here, Misplaced Pages should take extreme care when considering the banning of any TV outlets - least it be seen as a Propaganda Arm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.83.33 (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Should Wilipedia start banning news outlets?

If news outlets (such as RT or Press TV) are really as bad as some people are trying to paint of them, Misplaced Pages must ban them right away. Or, admit that such news outlets are no more or less truthful than any other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.83.41 (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

They are bad and their information has to be scrutinized and re-checked in real sources. Both of those belong and/or are funded by governments that do NOT hide their propaganda plans and goals. Both of their foreign ministries explicitly have included media as part of official state propaganda and have expressed that in their planning documents and declarations. However, while often unreliable or dubious, they still can be cited, as long as independent media supports their claims. 46.109.240.5 (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Then again, since the US State Department and British government also use TV outlets as part of their propaganda, should not care be taken with 'news' reports from Fox, CBS and The BBC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.61.136 (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Propaganda: Sources back up edit

Currently the propaganda sections says observers have stated that propaganda has been used by the Syrian Government and the Rebels since the start of the conflict. I want to add in that observers have also reported propaganda on the part of foreign governments. This is something that has been widely reported on. I’ve added this and it has been repeatedly deleted. On the last occasion, I added it on the basis of the following sources – To those who are deleting my edit, please identify which sources here you do not regard as authority for the edit:

• Daily Star- Syria accuses U.S. of chemical weapons propaganda
• Times of India The Times of India “The game plan in Syria”, 11 September 2012 (byline: The present violence is part of a larger narrative of Western manipulation of the Arab world)
• Monde Diplomatique Syria’s propaganda war – Monde Diplomatique (English version)
• Foreign Policy Journal - Propaganda Is the Name of the Game in Media Reports of Atrocities in Syria, Foreign Policy Journal, 9 June 2012
• New Zealand Business Review - Propaganda, truth and lies in Syria, The National Business Review (New Zealand)
• Russia TodayChemical reaction: Obama warns Assad of ‘red line’ consequences, Russia Today, 4 December 2012
• Russia Today Lavrov blasts western media over Russian WMD to Syria claims (Russia Today report of 6 November, 2012)

Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Propaganda section pointless

This section should be removed completely. Propaganda happens in every modern war, having a article section about it just causes contention on Misplaced Pages talk.--197.170.28.93 (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A Section, about Propaganda, is Helpful

And because Propaganda happens in every war, that is the reason why this article (about Propaganda) must remain. No one really interested in the truth would say otherwise - unless the people they work for say otherwise? Unless they have something to hide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.61.158 (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Utter failure to keep a secular opposition

Here is a quote from this reuter article, made from a rebel within Aleppo: "They don't have a revolutionary mindset," he said, putting support for Assad at 70 percent among an urban population that includes many ethnic Kurds, Christians and members of Assad's Alawite minority. But he also acknowledged that looting and other abuses had cost the incoming rebels much initial goodwill. www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/08/us-syria-crisis-rebels-idUSBRE9070VV20130108

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21061018

No. More. Pretending.

The most relevant opposition now-a-days in Syria are the Islamists. Why not have the article reflect it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No where in the entire article does it say the FSA are secular. that 70% includes neutral people and people just tired of the conflict. In fact Jahbrat al Nusra is the most popular group in Aleppo. Sopher99 (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

They're certainly much more prominent than even 3 months ago, but given the patchiness of news, it's hard to make a judgement either way. At any rate, this conflict has been raging for almost two years now. For most of that time, the secular opposition was the dominant force, with Islamists at the margins. Better discipline and top-notch battlefield performance has meant that Islamists have been gaining much support quickly, while the FSA has been floundering as of late. However, this article is supposed to present the entire conflict, not just the newest developments. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

-Well it doesn't seem to do either well. I'm afraid to edit, because I don't want to get into an edit war, and while the Syrian people have my best, I cannot be bothered to go back and forth with others on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.86.235 (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Martin Chulov in the guardian 17 january - "A week of interviews with rebel groups in north Syria has revealed a schism developing between the jihadists and residents, which some rebel leaders predict will eventually spark a confrontation between the jihadists and the conservative communities that agreed to host them.

Some already talk of an Iraq-style "awakening" – a time in late-2006 as when communities in the Sunni heartland cities of Fallujah and Ramadi turned on al-Qaida groups in their midst that had tried to impose sharia law and enforce their will through the gun barrel. "We'll fight them on day two after Assad falls," a commander said. "Until then we will no longer work with them." In recent weeks Liwa al-Tawhid and other militias who form part of the Free Syrian Army have started their own operations, without inviting al-Nusra along." Sayerslle (talk) 00:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• A little counter to Sopher's bogus "secular FSA" numbers: He then stressed, "We will fight until we establish an Islamic state in Syria. Even the 75% of the Free Syrian Army is fighting with this in mind. We don't want it as strict as Saudi Arabia, but we will not let go until we achieve our goal." FunkMonk (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a certain silly someone didn't bother to read what the other guy wrote! Sopher said "No where in the entire article does it say the FSA are secular". Oopsies! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a certain silly someone didn't bother to check the archives: "5 - Secular defectors make up half the FSA, Islamist make up 30%.Sopher99 (talk) 18:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)" FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow great. Too bad this thread isn't the archives. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. The point is that the Nusra boys themselves claim the FSA is 75% Islamist. Which is highly relevant to the subject of this thread. FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You believe what al Nusra says at face-value? So when they come out with the statistic that 90% of Syria is anti-assad and the other 10% are just hezbollah, you'll believe it right? Sopher99 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Should we believe what the FSA says at face value? Considering the morality of the FSA is absolute. Oh right, this is the same FSA that has been accused of looting in Aleppo. If the FSA member in the above Reuters article says Assad has 70% of support amongst the people within the city, should we believe this is a gross underrepresentation and he has close to 95% support? 99.9999999999999% support? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.85.144 (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting how the 'Brave Protesters' of a while back, have turned into the murdering armed-gangs, car-bombers and church-attackers that they are today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.61.158 (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Calm down. I said face-value. Ie believe without thinking. Sopher99 (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

My numbers are basic math. Islamic front (unification of all islamic brigades, including the moderate islamist tahwid) claims to have 25,000 members. Al nusra claims 10,000 members, but I have heard as low as 6,000. 25,000 + 10,000 = 35,000. 35,000/120,000 = 29.16 %, or plain 30%. Sopher99 (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I see your math, and that is fine, but can I get some evidence that the opposition really has 120,000 members? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.85.144 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC) I see the interview of Voice of Russia with Riad al-Assad that quotes FSA fighters at 100,000, but leaders tend to exaggerate in order to make their forces seem indestructible. Fidel Castro managed to convince Batista and the U.S. that his guerrilla group of a few dozen in the Sierra Maestra were thousands. Hitler managed to convince the French that he had hundreds of thousands of Germans crossing the Rhine into France. Where is the neutral numbers regarding FSA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.85.144 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

All of you have good points, but would it be more useful to put forward a concrete suggestion as to how this should all be reflected in the article itself (e.g. proposed text), instead of general discussion of numbers? So for instance, in the section on the FSA, you could write "source A has reported in (date) that B% of FSA fighters are Islamic militants.(source) By contrast, in (date) source C stated that only D% of FSA fighters were members of Islamic Brigades.(source) According to the Al-Nusra front, 75% of the FSA is Islamist; source F has stated however that the FSA is largely secular, and that some members of the FSA have been critical of Al-Nusra's support and tactics.(source, source)" You all follow this more closely than I do and so are better poised to write something, but text like this wouldn't commit the article and would just allow readers to see what different sources have claimed.-Darouet (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Already done. Check the Free Syrian Army article itself. This is a summary of the civil war. We only spend a sentence or two on Shabiha, Hezbollah, and Iraqi Shiites, we only need to spend a sentence or two on the growing power of Islamists. Details about opposition and government forces go in their main pages. Sopher99 (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You're mistaken: there's a long section in the FSA article that describes its relationship with Islamists, but that finds no expression in this article. In fact, the only reference to Islamists here is a sentence suggesting no relationship at all: "Clan leaders in Syria claim that the armed uprising is of a tribal, revenge-based nature, not Islamist."-Darouet (talk) 00:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Government or regime

I don't know if it was discussed already, I checked and did not find recent results like this. I want to know whether this article is okay regarding the use of the terms "government" and "regime". As sometimes to refer to the SAA we use "government" and sometimes "regime". Should we decide to choose only one of them for the article?--Andres arg (talk) 05:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I say "no" - it adds a nice variety in style and it's very clear in the meaning.HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this was discussed before. The term "regime" has negative connotations, so it should be avoided for NPOV reasons.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was discussed before and was decided since we were not using the term terrorists for some of the rebels we were also not going to use the term regime as it had been found to be a weasel word. So no to the word regime. The neutral terms for both sides forces is ether pro-government or Army and opposition forces or rebels. EkoGraf (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Fouad Ajami : " I think the early claims of Assad - that he was a nationalist, that he wanted to build a strong state, that he wanted to heal the rift betwen the Alawis and Sunnis all claims shown to have been fragile and false - in the end, it was about the rule of the family." - - Bashar Assad "only candidate in 2007 - president for life - dictator of Syria - it became easy for Assad to believe the well-being of the country was synonomous with his own well-being" (David Lesch) - and Hafez got 99.6% of the vote in 1991!? - anyway, regime is used in a lot of RS Sayerslle (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not a WP:WEASEL word—those are vague constructions that give the impression of sourcing without being sourced. It is, however a WP:LABEL and thus POV. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the WP:LABEL note it does say, "best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources" - and regime is , of course, very widely used by reliable sources.Sayerslle (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The term "government" is also widely used, and has much less POV connotations. Unless you want to permit use of similar negative POV labels like "insurgents" or "terrorists" for the opposition, I suggest we follow strict NPOV on this. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, when I said weasel word I wanted to say a negative possibly personal POV word. Didn't express myself right. But in any case I agree, we should stick to NPOV procedure. EkoGraf (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I would also agree that government is much more neutral term.--Liquidinsurgency (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

But why was the term 'regime' used in the first place? Were Misplaced Pages interested being even-handed, then they should have used the word 'government' - from the start. That they failed to do so only adds to the impression that Misplaced Pages was/is following the US regime and its' attempt to paint the Syrian government black. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.87.170 (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It is used because RS use it - from todays Guardian for example "A businessman noted with irony that when it was founded, Assad's Ba'ath party used to have socialist pretensions. "Now," he said, "it's the peasants and workers who are being bombed out of their homes, while the capitalists survive here or find easier ways to escape."

a painter who spent two decades in exile in Paris and returned in 2008, is one of the few Assad opponents who was willing to be quoted by name. He draws charcoal pictures that express Syria's current sadness in elegant simplicity. "The country is increasingly being emptied by the democrats," he told me. "It leaves Syria to the regime and the Salafis. People take a risk by staying here but going to Beirut puts Syria at risk."

Every conversation is dominated by the rumble of bombing and the misery it causes as the regime seeks to keep control of "old Damascus", the area that lies inside the ring road and where regime supporters' homes and most government ministries are situated."

And this is typical, report after report. You used the word yourself. bit hypocritical to say wp shouldnt use it, when RS use it continually, and you yourself do. what do you want, wp just to parrot words and descriptors Assad regime or Russia Today or Press TV use? Sayerslle (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Surely the loaded term is used because it fits with the negative picture that is being painted about Syria. I used “US regime” to see how people (mostly in the US) might react to the term. For there are people around the world that consider the US government to be a 'regime'. With all the stress placed on the term 'regime' - used three times in bold - you give away your negative agenda. And, by saying that every conversation "is dominated by the rumble of bombing and the misery it causes as the regime seeks to keep control", you are clearly putting out (crude) anti-Syrian Propaganda. Should you not have gone to Fox News? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.83.41 (talk) 10:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Third row for Kurdish forces

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

Kurdish factions in the Syrian civil war have generally not aligned themselves with either the Syrian government or the rebels, so it has been proposed several times before that they should have a third row for themselves in the infobox, since they fight both of those factions. There is precedent in the article 2012–2013 Syrian Kurdistan conflict, as well as in the Northern Mali conflict (2012–present) and Algerian civil war, which have the exact same or similar division of factions. However, though the prior discussion has favoured a third row, three or four users keep reverting the change without any valid explanation, though "undue weight" is being repeated over and over by one editor. So we would like some fresh eyes to look through the issue. FunkMonk (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Simple question: Should the Kurdish forces be listed in a third column, or keep it as it is?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Involved editors' comments

• Introduce third column. The current infobox is grossly biased in favor of the rebel factions. The current layout downplays the fact that the Kurds are in conflict with the rebels, and deliberately avoids utilizing the template parameters introduced precisely for the purpose of depicting said confrontation - in favor of a silly note. It is absurd beyond belief to have a 2012–2013 Syrian Kurdistan conflict article with three columns, but a Syrian civil war article - which includes said conflict, with two columns. Its a highly biased, propagandistic depiction of the conflict ("yes the Kurds fight both of them, but its the government they really hate don't ya know..").

This is just the most glaring issue, but the problems here are legion. We have, for example, an infobox that includes Qatar, a non-participant that supports the rebels, but excludes Israel - who've been bombing targets in Syria and were involved in border clashes with the Syrian Army. All apparently to avoid the appearance of Israeli association with the rebels. -- Director (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Israel isn't the focus of the RfC, and FWIW Israel doesn't doesn't want to be associated with the rebels either . But let's stick to the PYD as long as we're here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

To uninvolved users: Please read the discussion below before commenting.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Handing out required reading, FT? -- Director (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Or don't, actually. We'd rather you participate than run away screaming and making the sign of the cross. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that well-penned remark. Nice to see deep comments that move the debate along. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.87.170 (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

• Keep it as two columns The Valid explanation is that three columns are undue weight. Deaths from Kurdish conflict represent under 1% of the deaths (150 out of 60,000+) over all. The amount Kurdish fighters (4,500) represent around 1% of the amount of fighter overall (approx 400,000) in the conflict. The Kurds have only began fighting the pass 6 months. If you put a third column the reader will assume that the conflict is equally about the kurds as is the rebel or government. Kurds have an extreme minority involvement, one not worth a third column. Sopher99 (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That is not a valid argument. The "small number of deaths" does not mean that there is no fighting, and most recent news items suggest there is at least weekly fighting between Kurds and rebel force. FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

But what fighting there is pales in comparison to the fighting between the other groups. Making a third column is undue weight. It is better to just elabaorate in the main article the sub-conflict. Sopher99 (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That is not an argument, that is your subjective opinion, based on no precedents at all. Lets remove America from the infobox of Battle of Mogadishu (1993), because only 18 Americans died! FunkMonk (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

But 1000+ somalis were killed by American. I am saying 150 were killed on "all three sides" Sopher99 (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)"Weight" determines whether or not they are included in the first place. After that bar of inclusion is crossed, it becomes a matter of factual accuracy. PYD and rebels in Ras al-Ayn don't take into account wikipolicy as they kill each other. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Infobox_military_conflict "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article." Sopher99 (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop the barrage of misquoted policy and guidelines. This has nothing to do with UW, and that quote just above refers to not listing too many participants in the infobox, it does not advise against depicting a three sided conflict as three sided. Ridiculous.. -- Director (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I was actually talking to FunkMunk with that one. But apparently I am not allowed to post-indent. Sopher99 (talk) 04:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Sopher has a way with flimsy numbers, as noted above. But that is irrelevant here, what matters is what published sources say and precedent, not what some guy sits at home and discovers on his calculator. All sources agree the Kurds are an important fighting force in this war. All sources also agree the Kurds are not aligned with either other faction. End of story, they belong in their own row. FunkMonk (talk) 04:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Kurds are important. But no where near as important by both action and sources as the rebels and government. http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:Infobox_military_conflict "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article." We don't have to' include Kurds in the infobox in the first place. Sopher99 (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'd note that we're specifically talking about the PYD/YPG here as opposed to Kurds in general. As for the "numbers" argument, one need only look at Slovenia's inclusion in the Yugoslav Wars infobox to see why that's not relevant either. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed. What matters is that Kurds are in conflict with the rebels, and should therefore be placed in a separate column. Plain and simple. None of these excuses really matter at all with regard to the huge breach of NPOV. -- Director (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Slovenia doesn't have a third column there. Its Aligned with Croatia. Sopher99 (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No its not, actually. Its separated by a horizontal line. -- Director (talk) 04:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Much like the mujihideen. Sopher99 (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The point of the example is that Slovenia was a very marginal participant, and was still included. With its position depicted. The Mujahideen fight together with the Free Syrian Army, and therefore do not require separation. -- Director (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Slovenia is a country of its owns, unlike the Kurds. Furthermore the specific year is listed next to them. Thats international war. Sopher99 (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually it was considered to have been a civil war at that (early) point. And the Syrian National Coalition are a country of their own? More nonsense.

The only relevant fact is that the Kurds are in conflict with the rebels. The rest of your fake arguments and excuses are utterly irrelevant ("this is international war, this is something else, undue weight...") -- Director (talk) 04:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

See also Algerian Civil War for precedent. One rebel faction gets its own row, and it is not even made clear if their number of death reach Sopher's declared absolute minimum. FunkMonk (talk) 04:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)No, Slovenia was a constituent part of Yugoslavia which seceded to become independent. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

That Algeria third row is more undue weight than a Kurdish third column. No known casualties or known army strength does not make it a legitimate combatant. Sopher99 (talk) 04:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

So I guess you'll go and remove it then? FunkMonk (talk) 04:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight determines whether or not something is included in the first place. Stop conflating it with facts. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Some one reading the third row would automatically assume the civil war is just as much about Kurds as it is rebels or government. They will think the Kurds are fighting everywhere in Syria, and were fighting since the beginning. Sopher99 (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculous. You're grasping at straws now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh, then we can have one of your beloved notes to explain they don't "fight all over Syria", eh? And is what you "think other people might think" more important than factual accuracy? And why don't you just come clear and say that you simply don't want the infobox to clearly show that the Kurds are against the rebels under any circumstances? FunkMonk (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If this was about defending the image of the rebels. The Kurds would not be my first choice of removal. The PFLP would be be. And I don't remember resisting that. As I said, putting Kurds in a third row makes it look like this is purely a three way conflict, like in the Lebanese civil war. its not. 99% of fighting and casualties is between rebels and government. 97% of towns and villages don't even have kurds. Sopher99 (talk) 05:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I repeat, your self-made numbers and percentages, which are original research by the way, are irrelevant. What matters is what is actually being reported by the news. All sources agree the Kurds are an important fighting force in this war. All sources also agree the Kurds are not aligned with either other faction. As for the PFLP, I have no doubt you would remove them if you could find even the slightest excuse. Too bad you can't. FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No source says they are a primary or distinct side in the war. And many sources declare amity between Kurds and FSA, such as the ny times article released today. Sopher99 (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

And I quote Lothar in the former thread: "sources address the topic in detail, like the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace calling it "The Rise of Syria's Kurds" and the Institute for the Study of War publishing a 16-page document devoted to the PYD and the Kurdish side of the conflict, referring to the PYD as a "powerful third force"." FunkMonk (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

These are not anywhere near common media. These two sources from think tanks don't decide anything. Sopher99 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)\

ie it mean an extreme minority of sources, and certainly no media coverage sources, report them as the third major force. Sopher99 (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Do a Google search for "reuters kurds syria". All reports describe them as a third war party with no alignments, despite futile attempts at outreach by the SNC. FunkMonk (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• This discussion is perhaps moot. The point was to attract outside voices, so perhaps we should give it a rest until someone new joins (could take more than 24 hours it seems). The regulars here won't get nowhere, as we have seen. FunkMonk (talk) 05:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Laying some critical points here:

First off, we're specifically debating the PYD and its armed wing, the YPG—that which is currently listed in the infobox. Groups like Yekîtî, Azadî, and the KNC are ultimately extraneous to this debate.

Second, "undue weight" concerns itself with which factions are to be mentioned in the infobox in the first place. Once a faction is significant enough to be in the infobox, the question then turns to how should we align them. Alignment in a conflict has nothing to do with wikirules. YPG forces do not take into account any of our policies while they fight with rebels in Ras al-Ayn or Aleppo, nor when they fight the army around Hasakah's oil fields. "Weight" is something we made up and does not define the situation on the ground. Now, the order in which groups within a side are presented falls under the domain of weight—but that is the tertiary concern. When it comes to deciding factional alignments, we must look at the facts presented to us in the sources (cf. ISW's detailed research which describes the PYD as a "powerful third force"). The current infobox is just plain factually incorrect—any allegations of "pro-rebel bias" aside. (I should note that I myself have been accused, rightly or wrongly, of "pro-rebel bias" in the past—but observe my position here!)

Third, death tolls and other numbers are not per se evidence of insignificance. If low casualties and marginal participation made a group insignificant and thus of "low weight", then we should not see e.g. Slovenia in the Yugoslav Wars infobox. Like the PYD in Syria, Slovenia was a case of a secessionist group quickly establishing itself as separate from the extant state apparatus (in this case Yugoslavia). Like the PYD in Western Kurdistan, it established territorial control over its desired area relatively quickly and with minimal bloodshed, due largely to the state apparatus (Syria/Yugoslavia) not wanting to expend military resources on a side (Slovenia/PYD) that could be spent on more volatile combatants ("non-Serbs"/"Arab opposition"). But despite the relative peacefulness of the transition in both areas, the fact that both sides threw off the established order to set up their own administration—that is, seceding—means that they partook significantly in the conflict. For the PYD, the key difference is that they have fought other insurgent groups to a similar extent that they have fought the state—it goes beyond Slovenia's effective non-alignment with Croats/Bosniaks/etc. Furthermore, Kurds make up 15% (cf. ) of Syria's population, and are present in significant numbers in the two largest cities. Their dominant political/military organ (the PYD/YPG, the focus of this discussion) controls and administers a large portion of the largest city (Aleppo) separately from any of the other two sides. This is to speak nothing of other parts of Aleppo province, and especially Hasakah, where the PYD/YPG runs the show in most areas. No, they aren't evenly distributed across the country, but what minority group is in any country? Slovenia(ns) occupied a comparatively small area on the extreme end of Yugoslavia and accounted for ~10% of the population (I'm using modern populations of the former Yugoslav states for this estimate, but my point stands).

To sum up—there is no coherent argument to keep the PYD/YPG shunted into the rebel column. Sopher's various arguments pertaining to "undue weight" are a bizarre Frankenstein job of half-rotten parts of extraneous arguments. The PYD/YPG unambiguously needs a separate third column. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem with ongoing conflicts is that without academic and professional sources defining the scope of the term "Syrian civil war", what we are doing here, trying to figure out the scope of the term and which combatants it applies to is borderline WP:OR. The impression I get is that the term "Syrian civil war" is usually used to refer the struggle between Assad's government and the forces trying to overthrow it. The Kurdish conflict, the Lebanese conflict and others are more like spillovers/impact of the "Syrian civil war", not part of the main conflict.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, Lothar's claim that the ISW said the Kurds are a powerful third force is a lie. It said: "As of november 2012, the PYD appears determined to establish itself as a powerful third force in Syria, willing to confront Turkey, the Arab opposition, and the Assad regime." The ISW said the Kurds might be trying to establish itself as a third force, but hasn't yet, and it hasn't confronted Turkey, the Arab opposition, and the Assad regime yet either.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Turkey maybe not (Assad himself hasn't proven himself keen on that either), but certainly rebels who enter from Turkey and the government . And "spillover conflict" within a country's own borders? Laughable. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Again, I repeat, and no one has refuted this. There's already a note below the Kurds listing, so there's no need for 3rd column, especially considering the undue weight. Notes are used in the infoboxes of the Iraq War article, the WWII article, and many others. Since there's no professional source defining the scope of the term "Syrian civil war", there isn't much we can do except wait for the situation to change/clarify.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Its broke, and it needs fixin', as it doesn't show the Kurds in conflict with the rebels, which is a very-well documented fact. The infobox columns are there to separate factions in conflict with one-another. If it is sourced that factions are fighting each-other, they cannot be placed in the same column. According to the "there are no sources defining the scope" nonsense argument, it follows we would need to remove the infobox, or at best place everyone in one column, because hey - who knows if the rebels are fighting the government..

In avoiding the standard and appropriate depiction of said conflict, the current infobox is in gross violation of WP:NPOV. This is an obvious, very straightforward error, and has to be fixed right now. -- Director (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No it's not broken. It's based on the model used in the Iraq War, War on Terror, and Mexican Drug War articles, in which the government is placed in one column, while the insurgents/irregulars are placed in the other with a note denoting that there is also fighting between insurgent groups.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Its broken. None of those infoboxes place combatants who fight each-other into the same column. Combatants who fight each-other cannot be placed into the same column. Its that simple. Unless, I suppose, in extreme situations where there are four or more combatants fighting each-other - which is not the case here. Here we have a very obvious POV distortion. And please don't use section headings to further your position. It gets out of hand pretty fast.. -- Director (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Supreme facepalm of destiny Right... The Sunnis and Shias insurgents in Iraq never fought each other... --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm Ugh.. did I not say that your examples do not apply? Am I being unclear? I'll repeat. In extreme cases, where the infobox cannot provide for an adequate depiction of a four-sided, five-sided, six-sided conflict, we have no choice but to simplify the infobox in that manner. But nowhere on this project will you find a three-sided conflict depicted as anything other than three sided. And even if you do - its an error and misuse of the {{Infobox military conflict}} template. Do you understand? -- Director (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You said "None of those infoboxes place combatants who fight each-other into the same column" which is completely false.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care. -- Director (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you don't care and the fact that you didn't even bother to check those articles carefully suggests you lack WP:competence and should not be suggesting major infobox changes. Your proposal to include Israel failed because of this also.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. Anyhow, it's pretty clear by now that Sopher/Trillionaire/Sayerselle don't care about the facts on the ground, precedents, or sources, only about making their pet rebels seem noble and unified. And I proposed adding Israel, for the record. And the suggestion stands sound. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

@FunkMonk In November 2012 I said on Talk "Syria Ras al-Ayn, Syria - last week it was being bombed by Assad but today the PKK had been fighting with Syrian anti-Assad forces and that the wounded anti-Assad fighters were treated in Turkey but the PKK wounded could not do this and were treated on the Syrian side of the border. It does seem odd therefore to see any PKK flags on the Opposition side at this time as it's a more muddled picture. a third column might be a good idea really" - and 'their pet rebels', what about WP:AGF/CIVIL? bit Manichaean your world imo.Sayerslle (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Lol, because accusing other editors of lacking "competence" (while misspelling the damn word) is civil, right? FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You really should watch your mouth. The number of times you dropped the F-bomb can easily get you blocked.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

So can you show me the "no-fucking" policy? As long as I don't say fuck you, everything should be in order. FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I count a mere two instances on this page aside from the comment directly above. Nevertheless, I think at this point we've beaten the discussion here to a formless, festering pulp. I'm considering hatting this discussion so that we don't spook even the most iron-willed RfC-goers away. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You might want to check his edit summaries in history tab.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

THERE ARE NO PKK IN SYRIA. ONLY PYD. INFORM YOURSELF PLEASE. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

"The P.Y.D. is the most powerful Kurdish faction in Syria and has a well trained militia. This is perhaps a product of its ties to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or P.K.K., a guerrilla group that has been fighting for Kurdish autonomy in Turkey." the point of the third column what with fighting in Ras-al-Ayn was my point anyhow. you SHOUTING, funkmonk atatcking ones integrity - right toxic. and the New york times article the other day went on :"The leadership of the P.Y.D. plays down its ties to the P.K.K. But Syrian Kurds often use the names interchangeably, and P.Y.D. offices feature portraits of the imprisoned P.K.K. leader Abdullah Ocalan and Syrian P.K.K. guerrillas killed in fighting with Turkey." inform yourself PLEASE. Sayerslle (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Keywords being "ties to". Shall we start referring to Jabhat al-Nusra as Al-Qaeda in Iraq, then? I shout because I'm tired of people who can't be bothered to do any more than surface research on the topic—who can't even accurately identify who we are talking about here—trying to pretend like they have the requisite knowledge to participate constructively. You're not the first one to do this—Sopher kept doing it earlier. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

@Futuretrillionaire, maybe your irrelevant "examples" are illustrative of your own "competence" for discussing infobox templates. The offensive ad hominems, on the other hand make me think on the subject of your competence for discussions in general. It baffles me that you apparently believe attacking the person who pointed out the supposed "precedents" do not apply, will make said examples any more applicable. Imo, I myself must be doing something right here with ten times your edit count . -- Director (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• PYD KNC and the KSC need to be a third party to the infobox. It is misleading and incorrect to have them under the banner of the Syrian Opposition when they continue to fight the FSA and their allies in north and north-east regions syria. This needs to be changed and updated. Can we move to consensus and action the change ASAP??? -Zombiecapper (talk 12:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Its not misleading because we have a blatant note describing clashes underneath the Kurds linking to Kurdistan conflict. A third column is underweight, not to mention there is not even a minority of sources that describe the scope of the conflict ot include Kurds. The double line is the answer. Sopher99 (talk) 12:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The "blatant note" is the most ridiculous thing I saw in an infobox. If the Kurds and the Rebels fight each-other they have no place in the same column: lines indicate non-association, i.e. that they are not allies, but conflicting factions are placed in separate columns.

The Kurdistan conflict article in and of itself clearly demonstrates that said fighting is more than notable. Your own personal ideas of "underweight" are irrelevant and concern noone but yourself. The only thing "blatant" here is your POV-pushing. -- Director (talk) 12:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Woah! Woah! Guys, come on, I think were all adults, yes! look its pretty straight forward...PYD is more aligned with Assad than the opposition (unconfirmed), actively fighting FSA (and allies) forces in Aleppo and north western Syria (confirmed). We really should move it to a third column, I think it is misleading and wrong, misleading to the point of a big banner saying SYRIAN NATIONAL COALITION, with their flag at the top of the combant2 box. Refer to the precedents of the Yugoslav Wars info box(s). Not light weight. Looks good. We all could make it look good here to. Why do we not trial and see...whats there to loose???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper (talk • contribs) 10:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep as two columns I´ve been thinking about this for a long time and can see it from both ways so I understand reasoning of both sides, yet I am slightly inclined to this. Why? From military standpoint it is true that Kurds are 3rd side, fighting both rebels and regime, depending on the situation - they are responsive force which so far had armed clashes only because they were attacked by either side. Their initial push into Kurdish cities went mostly without violence and small police force vacated their offices quickly, very possibly thanks to deal stroke between all sides that PYD will stay neutral and will hinder voices from KNC which called for full-scale involvement in war on side of FSA.
However from political point of view they proudly proclaim to be on side of thawra - revolution - KSC is opposed to Assad and calls for his downfall and no Kurdish political or military force calls for separation, as often accused by Arabs. From this side if we have pro-Assad and anti-Assad forces Kurds fall under the anti-Assad column, though I agree that line has to be there to separate them from FSA because of clashes as happened in Ras al-Ayn. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Moreover. KNC (though not PYD) is part of Syrian National Coalition . Politically they are obviously on anti-Assad side. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. One thing: infobox columns present the de facto military situation. Not the de jure political situation. -- Director (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a military infobox designed to show a military situation. The alignment of the KNC or even the KSC isn't relevant, as they haven't shown themselves to play such a significant role in the military conflict. While there are e.g. Yekîtî militias, no other Kurdish force comes near the power or influence of the YPG (and they like to keep it that way)—which is the group in the infobox and the group that is is ultimately being discussed here. Should others come to play a larger role, we can work that out later—the format used in the Yugoslav Wars infobox may be adaptable for this situation. While they may not call for separation to the point of independence, they do demand autonomy—which their "anti-Assad" pals aren't keen on. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

One way to solve this issue would be to to name the two combatants "Government" (bold and break line) and "Opposition"(bold and break line)- or any other titles which maybe relevant (Baathist-aligned and Anti-Baathist Forces). These two headings under this proposal would be absent of any flags/insignia. This would present a break down of two sides, opposition and government. Refer to precedent of Rwandan Civil War info-box. Thoughts????

I like the idea. Sopher99 (talk) 13:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course you do. This idea also fails to address the problem, which is that the PYD Kurds are not part of "the opposition", they are their own force. The idea changes nothing. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I think he is talking about opposition in general. Ie non-state parties that don't approve the current government's control. Sopher99 (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Insurgents rather than opposition would be the better term to use. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yay! Insurgents could potentially work, it does meet the definition. As could Anti-Government or Anti-Assad.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper (talk • contribs) 22:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved users

Place your comments here.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• As I mentioned above, this section is not for us regulars to discuss further in vain, but to attract outside voices. We already know the views of each other very well, so let's cut it off until someone objective can give some constructive pointers. Uninvolved users comment under the request, not down here. And do not modify my fucking comments. Thank you. FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
• Bah, noone's coming.. :) -- Director (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
• List in the 3rd column - If the Kurdish Rebels are fighting both the rebels to topple assad and the government forces then they should have their own section. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

That they are. -- Director (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

They are not fighting the rebels to topple Assad. Sopher99 (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand the post. -- Director (talk) 15:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry badly worded, I meant the Kurdish Rebels fighting against the Syrian National Coalition and the Syrian Government. Right now it looks to me in the infobox that the Kurdish Rebels are fighting with the Syrian National Coalition, thats just my opinion though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/world/middleeast/syrias-kurds-try-to-balance-security-and-alliances.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& Interview with the leader of the PYD, they are not fighting with the FSA (SNC). Sopher99 (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Correction: he does not regard those units killing Kurds in Ras al-Ayn as "FSA" because it's a meaningless designation. Nevertheless, from other sources we know that the FSA and Nusra are there. Ras al-Ayn holds a strategic position that would allow for greater rebel mobility and shorter, safer supply lines in the east of the country, which the PYD effectively is preventing. If you were to interview rebel fighters in the city, they'd say that the PYD were actually just "regime militia and shabiha" or something like that. Doesn't make it true. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually that interview has a lot of truth in it. Like it or not, media too often brand all rebel groups as FSA though it is far away from truth. Only two confirmed groups we have in Ras al-Ayn are 1, Ghuraba al-Sham 2, Jabhat al-Nusra. Some claim that Farouq sent reinforcements there but so far I´ve seen no confirmation about it from any source, nor Farouq media centre released one footage from the city. Also Farouq uses opposition flag, only flag Arabs in Ras al-Ayn used is black flag of Jihad. No tri-star flag. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't think 3rd row should be used if it can be reasonably avoided. People tend to ignore this little factor but 3rd row means that 2 other rows are thinner, making whole thing worse reading experience. This becomes especially apparent with longer infoboxes like we have here (although it has improved recently somewhat, I remember seeing worse here in January). I would say that current solution is sufficient at the moment for showing Kurdish presence. It should be kept in mind that infobox is always going to be simplified, simply because its a fucking box, and not particularly big one either.--Staberinde (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Then why would you say the Kurds should be in the left, rather than the right-hand column? They fight both sides.. -- Director (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
    • But they have a common goal against the Syrian government. And they don't fight both sides, the defend against both sides. The PYD don't attack the rebels sides, occasionally the rebels attack the PYD. To make this clear we have two, not one, lines separating them, and a note underneath describing occasional clashes and linking to a main page. Sopher99 (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
      • • Oh really? That's why we're hearing all about those YPG units spearheading assaults on Damascus and nothing about them managing joint control of Qamishli and Hasakah with government forces. Or was it the other way around? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
          • Actually there is no joint control in Qamishlo. Regime has as good as lost that area, bases in Malikiyah area were vacated after YPG attacked army platoon to secure the oil installation and now you can hear pretty clearly and loudly about more than 30 civilians and more than dozen YPG dead in clashes with army and pro-government militias in Aleppo´s Ashrafieh district which is being shelled for second week by Syrian government. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
          • PS: There are no YPG patrols in Hasaka city. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
            • Malikiyah is a bit east of there and more isolated. Govt forces tend to vacate more remote areas to consolidate in major cities. I've seen nothing about govt forces leaving Qamishli.
            • Re Hasakah: This would seem to indicate otherwise. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
      • For me the most important Kurdish role seems to be taking control of significant areas. As far as I am aware it was mostly government, not FSA, that controlled those areas previously, and therefore lost all that ground to Kurds.--Staberinde (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Kurds took over their own regions, and now the rebels are attacking the Kurds there. The Kurds are not aligned with either. It is pretty simple. As for the subjective "reading experience" argument, that is irrelevant, factual accuracy is the goal. The point is to consider the problems we have outlined, not make up new ones. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Kurds are aligned with the FSA, but not the people attacking PYD checkpoints. Both however are rebels trying to overthrow government rule. Both against the government, however PYD and rebels are not against each other, they jusst don't want eachother to intervene in their affairs for the most part. Since its the government's job to intervene in the Kurds affairs, the kurds go on the rebels column. Not to mention there is a double line and a note to clarify things. Sopher99 (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? That must why the YPG loves it when FSA troops in Aleppo try to use Ashrafiyeh and/or Sheikh Maqsud to get at government troops on the other side. The government has taken great care not to "intervene" in Kurdish matters, so that point is utterly irrelevant. What the hell is "it's the government's job" supposed to mean anyway? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Could everyone please stop saying "the Kurds" as if they're some monolithic force. While it's a known fact that the KNC is sympathetic to the SNC/FSA, the KNC is not the group we're discussing, and not the group listed in the infobox. The group we are discussing is the PYD and its military wing, the YPG. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • On just the PYD , Josh Wood, in an International Herald Tribune article notes : "The P.Y.D.’s militant Kurdish nationalism, which puts ethnic identity before allegiance to Syria, and their goal of some form of autonomy has put them at odds with Syria’s rebels. After decades of discriminatory policies against the Kurds under the Baath Party, the P.Y.D. is opposed to anybody but Kurds ruling their areas." Sayerslle (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
  • And YPG is not only, though it is main, armed Kurdish faction. Yekiti has its own militia, there is TCK militia, all participated in combat in Ras al-Ayn, all not too friendly with PYD (PYD-KNC tensions are nearly identical to those of PUK and KDP) EllsworthSK (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

So what now? Again the obviously-necessary changes have been stalled and stonewalled, and the biased nonsense is still up. This is blatant POV and we simply can not have the encyclopedia sporting it. We should move on and take this further, as was my original conception. Either way Sopher will probably edit-war over this change, and admin enforcement will be needed (Kosovo-style; this article has many parallels). What is necessary is a Kosovo-like "ruling" on the matter, supported by admin action. -- Director (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess so. I'm unfamiliar with the process, are you up for the task? FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Its not exactly rocket science . The question is whether to go to DRN (which is still sort of low-key), or to go straight to mediation or even ARBCOM. -- Director (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Why is DIREKTORI so obsessed with including a third column? First you wanted Israel now it's the kurds. Next week it will be someone else. Why can't you accept that your opinion is in the extreme minority? This conflict is clearly about the collapse of the Syrian regime so the opposition factions should be grouped together. If these opposition factions are are fighting each other after the regime falls then that will be a seperate conflict in a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.43 (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Syrian civil war
Part of the Arab Spring
Location Syria
Belligerents
Syrian National Coalition Free Syrian Army Syrian Liberation Front  Turkey (border clashes) (For other forms of foreign support, see here) Mujahideen al-Nusra Front Ahrar al-Sham Ghuraba al-Sham	Democratic Union Party Popular Protection Units	Syrian government Syrian Armed Forces Shabiha  Iran Revolutionary Guards Basij   Hezbollah   PFLP–GC   Iraqi Shi'ite militias (For other forms of foreign support, see here)
Israel (border clashes, air strikes)

@IP. It was my childhood, you see. When I used to play with my Legos my parents only bought me enough to put together two decent columns. From then on I've always been haunted by my obsessive need to see three columns everywhere.
Israel does not belong in a third/fourth column, as it has only engaged one combatant. It is a combatant here, though, and has to be included one way or the other. The columns of this infobox template reflect military conflict, not political alignment.

To clarify, I here submit how the infobox ought to appear in order to:

• #1 depict all combatants who have actually engaged in combat (Israel), without those who have not and are not fighting (Qatar, Saudi Arabia)
• #2 to represent whom these combatants are actually fighting.
• and #3 without all the nonsense clutter (such as every single agency and military organization of the Syrian government).

The rebels should also be to the left: rebels are the attacking party in a civil war, and attacking factions are usually placed to the left. -- Director (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

look at the Spanish Civil War article for example- oh, the spanish generals rebelled and they are to the right. Sayerslle (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Its not a rule by any means, no doubt one can find many exceptions, but in general the attacker is logically placed as combatant 1. Although I'm sure that particular issue is the very least of anyone's concerns here. -- Director (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I can't imagine why this infobox isn't used here. I can't conceive of a rational argument for its exclusion. The abhorrent pile of POV clutter that's up there now is just absurd. -- Director (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

We keep telling you. It would be undue weight and there is no source defining the scope of the civil war as a three-way battle. Furthermore the PYD leader himself has described the PYD as being friendly with the FSA but opposing any interference. Sopher99 (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I gave you a 4,000 character essay on why "undue weight" is a bullshit argument, which you hardly did not responded to. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

These two infoboxes both solve the problem. It states clearing that there are two groups in this civil war. The government and those opposing the government. We can have the goverment ofrces listed as just Syrian government or listed along as Pro-Assad forces. We can have the other column listed as Insurgents or Opposition fighters. I see no excuses. Sopher99 (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• By "we" you mean "you"? "Undue weight"? By who's estimate? Yours? Pardon me while I laugh out loud. That's a handy little "mechanism" you've got by which any change whatsoever, no matter how obviously justified, can be stonewalled forever. Noone here is peddling the "undue weight" stuff but you. Do you seriously expect people to go "oh you say its undue weight, ok then.."?
• If you're going with the "no source defines the conflict" nonsense - then kindly delete the entire infobox forthwith. I'll be waiting. Otherwise can it, please.
• And finally, the PYD can claim whatever they like. Anything at all. They can claim they are secret agents from Jupiter. The only thing that matters here is the (profusely-sourced) fact that they are fighting the rebels.

And no, we will not have two ridiculous infoboxes just for the sake of your pro-SNC POV. Not a single war article on this project, including those far more complex, has two infoboxes. -- Director (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Blatant Undue weight. Thats like me making the world war 2 infobox all about the cold war, and then asking me "by whose estimate is it undue weight lol". Many many many many sources define the conflict as between the government as its allies and the opposition and its allies. I did not suggerst we have two infoboxes. I merely showed two possible infoboxes that Zombiecapper suggested. Sopher99 (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Two infoboxes?!? God, the amount of tap-dancing and squirming to get around the issue here is astounding! FunkMonk (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. I gave you two possible options of infoboxes. Sopher99 (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue of this absurd RfC is placing the Kurdish faction into the third column. You need not bother anyone with nonsense infobox proposals that leave the matter as it is. The infobox up there is the three-column proposal. Kindly do not delete it nor attempt to obscure it with fifty-five other infoboxes that are irrelevant to this thread. -- Director (talk) 12:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"By whose opinion". I was giving solutions as to why the "status quo" is better in this case. Particularly ones suggested in the involved users comments. Sopher99 (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

"Solutions" is not the word. Its a "solution" for you I'm sure, but unless you are prepared to recognize the necessity of a three-sided infobox for the neutral illustration of a three-sided conflict, this matter will be up on ARBCOM before its done. -- Director (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to add that it is astonishing that there is not three columns. Just typing fsa clashes with kurds gets a whole lot of hits. Let's get over the NPOV b.s. and add a third column. --70.71.17.180 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Let us copy the German and French example with regards to where we designate the Kurds. I for one support a third Kurdish row. --70.71.17.180 (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, as you can see below, there is currently a WP:DRN thread about this . Uninvolved input would be appreciated. -- Director (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

* Uninvolved User Comment - Two columns. When the dust settles, then maybe more - it is always very difficult (and emotional/partisan) to Wiki a Civil War in progress. One could make literally thousands of columns for all the nations with their hand in the civil war. ~~

Nope.. one most certainly couldn't introduce any more than three columns. You misunderstand how they're introduced: only factions fighting each-other are separated by perpendicular lines. As for "thousands", well, that's some hyperbole :) -- Director (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I just say that this dispute has gone on way too long? The constant reverts and counter-reverts are making it hard to actually edit the page to add new info or fix errors. – Michaelmas1957 (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

* Uninvolved User Comment - Two columns. It is quite obvious that in a conflict between two parties you list the two parties, hence two columns. There are huge issues of bias in relation to this article. The death toll in reported as being from the UN, in reality it is a CNN quote of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees and there is no context. It is not only inaccurate but misleading. Isthisuseful (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thread on WP:DRN

This is to notify there is currently a thread on the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard on this issue. -- Director (talk) 11:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

New development

Apparently some agreement has been concluded between rebels and YPG fighters in Ras al-Ayn, which seems to have ended the fighting with an added point of increasing collaboration against government forces . It remains to be seen how this will be borne out (and if it will hold up), but I think this may change the tone for debates on this topic. The time-nuanced Yugoslav Wars infobox may be the best model for this case, as it is clear that this agreement has the aim of producing the first real alignment between the parties in question, and that no such alignment existed prior. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Considering the fact that the rebels are run by Erdogan's Turkey, such a truce won't last long. But let's wait and see, the infobox isn't going anywhere. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that too little time has passed for this alliance to warrant a separate "temporal shelf" in the infobox. At present a simple three-sided box would still be accurate. If the truce holds after the customary two weeks, we can easily merge the two as a single column in a shelf below (à la my edits to the Yugoslav Wars or Yugoslav Front infoboxes.) Some kind of joint military action might help as well, in which case they would not need to be separated by a horizontal line. -- Director (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we should just wait until the truce inevitably breaks down. Then it will be plain as day that these groups will never join forces, and the third row proposal will stand even stronger than now. FunkMonk (talk) 09:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no question with regard to the third row. We're certainly not going to "ret-con" history. The only question is whether or not the two sides might be added in the second shelf as allies/combatants not in combat with one-another (after fighting each-other). -- Director (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

FSA "leader" Salim Idris has rejected the peace treaty , so this may well turn out to be DOA. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"When trying to understand why Idris rejected the accord only three days after it was signed, one has to bear in mind the influence of Turkey’s current policy on the FSA." No shit, Sherlock! And even if some "brigades" stop fighting the PYD, if others continue they still don't belonging the same column. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

However the peace treaty was signed by the FSA military council of Hasakah. Meaning all FSA Hasakah brigades are going to cooperate with PYD. This just enhances the argument that the FSA leans toward being a "trade-mark", and arguing whether or not the FSA and PYD fight with eachother is meaningless (ie you can't say they are not friends, neutrals, or enemies. Keep as two columns because its just comes down to the fact that the FSA, Mujihideen, and PYD all have the same goal of wrestling the government for control of areas. Sopher99 (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

It means so such thing. You go from saying that all FSA brigades will abide by it because some "commander" scribbled his name on the document to saying that FSA is a useless umbrella designation.

The PYD has done very little "wrestling". The general pattern has been: YPG units walk into a town, ask whatever security forces are present to leave, whereupon the security forces pack their bags and scoot in a hurry. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You misquote me. All FSA hasakah brigades will cooperate with the YPG.

The YPG has no Local Coordination Committees or SOHR. Individual fighters don't report how many soldiers they killed. When the FSA took control of Quneitra province, despite not reporting how many soldiers they killed, I am pretty sure they didn't ask the soldiers there to pack their bags. Reporting organizations and communication matters. Sopher99 (talk) 19:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

100% false. There are certainly Kurdish media organisations that report on happenings in Hasakah and other Syrian Kurdish regions. There's Rudaw (generally critical of the PYD; realtime site is down for maintenance for now), Firat News (pro-PYD), and the rights organisation KurdWatch. Most claims of deaths coming out of Ras al-Ayn come from the PYD/YPG's claims—it's the Islamists who don't like reporting their losses. SOHR itself reports on Kurdish happenings—that's where the information regarding the bloodless expulsion of government troops from Darbasiyah, Tall Tamr, and Amuda came from . Please at least pretend to do some research before spouting off. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

So why are there two separate rows for rebels in the Mali conflict article? Both factions surely want to "wrestle control for areas" from the government? FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The criteria of one article is not a mandate for another. I don't know much about that article, and if you notice, I did not edit that article even once. From the scatter of news I have come across, the Taurags and the Islamists are both wrestling control for governance. (Not to mention the Taurags and Islamists have just about equal weight and participation in the conflict). Sopher99 (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, they don't want to "wrestle areas out of control" for the same reasons, or for the same purpose, so your argument is highly misleading. And Futuretrillionaire amusingly supported the third row in theMali article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I never said for the same reason or purpose. But hey Iran and Syria are both fighting rebels for different reasons. One to "defend the axis of resistance" the other to defend their mafia cartel. Why don't you challenge the third row on that article's talkpage? I have nothing to do with those three rows. Sopher99 (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Why I don't challenge it? Perhaps because I agree with it? And lol at your POV characterisations. So the "rebels" are not zealous Salafists who want to establish a caliphate and exterminate all infidels? Both sides are "Nazis" in their own right, your extreme POV-pushing is baffling and ridiculous. I don't get this western cheer-leading for people who would behead them if they got the chance. There are unaligned, peaceful seculars who need the same zealous support, for your information. They get no love anywhere. FunkMonk (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

There are only 10,000 al nusra people if you believe al nusra's claims of strength. Only a fraction are radical in practice, most of them are there for the weapons and decisive leadership. Their spiritual leader Abu Golani probably isn't even in Syria. Sopher99 (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As for the baathists, they get no love because they even hate eachother. There have been only 2 baathist states in recent history, iraq and syria, and both were at eachothers throats. Your "peaceful" Baath leader Saddam straight up murdered 400,000 ethnic Iranians Shiites over the course of ten years. And your "peaceful" leader Assad just threw a dozen scuds at Aleppo today. Hafez ordered the assassination of the Baath co-founder Bitar. Right on the spot the own creator of the nazi cult is murdered by his fellow nazis. Sopher99 (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's some extreme tunnel vision right there. Did you notice I said unaligned seculars? Does that mean Baathists? As for Nusra, eh, even the "mainstream" FSA is overwhelmingly Islamist, regardless of what US and Gulf media wants you to believe. These are the same kind of people who are currently killing Liberals in Egypt and Tunisia. FunkMonk (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As for "people who will slice our head off" - I don't see that happened in Saudi Arabia, when the scimitar of "struggle against the infidels" is even on their flag. I don't see it happening under Morsi's Islamic government, or Tunisia. I don't see that happening to our diplomats in Iran, and Iran really hates us. Wake up, its not the 1800s anymore. Well it is in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Sopher99 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You have this image in your head that Americans are afraid of islamists because they are not secular. They are not afraid of Islamists because of their religion. They are afraid of Islamists because they are arab. Yes, its racism, not politics, that drives "anti-islam" sentiment in America. Yes, all Lebanese, even Christians and Alawites, are allu akbar islamists in the average American's eyes. Sopher99 (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you even follow the news? Leftists are being killed off in Tunisia and Egypt. Copts and blacks have been massacred in Egypt and Libya. And even then, the governments there show restraint, because they want to receive foreign aid. Once the West is unable to provide this due to whatever economic problems, the Muslim Brotherhood types will turn their backs on them in a second, and release their Salafite dogs. As for Saudi and Bahrain, people are being killed there weekly, but the protesters don't receive weapons or western support to defend themselves, so of course there aren't as many dead as in Syria, where many protesters were armed since at least March 2011. FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Leftists are not being killed off Tunisia or Egypt, neither or Copts. Blacks near Sabha and Kufra were fighting with arabs last year. "Secular" Yemen has been bombing and killing Houthis for decades. "secular" Morraco has been oppressing the Western Sahara for decades. No protesters were armed in 2011. People are not allowed to have guns in Syria. If they did get guns, it was to rightfully defend themselves. Besides, I strictly remember Egyptians burning down and rpging the police stations, but the number of peacefuls still outnumbers the violent types 1000 to 1. Eritrea is a secular country in the region, and it has the most oppression (other than North Korea) and refugees per populace in the world. Sopher99 (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Tunisia. Egypt.Libya Nuff said. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyway this is Soapboxing. If you would like I can remove our comments since "why are there two seperate" and put it on my/your talkpage Sopher99 (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems that this article (as so many since 2011) is kidnapped by pro-"rebels" who personally decide what information should be included and what not, what sources are reliable and what not, etc... And then you still wondering why WP is less and less reliable and most biased every day?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: A convoy of U.N. peacekeepers been have seized near the Golan Heights by Syrian rebels - who say that they will hold them until al-Assad's forces withdraw from a rebel-held village. The rebel action came on the day that Britain said it would increase aid to the "opposition forces". Reuters, Wed Mar 6, 2013 81.141.87.238 (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

journalists?

wha foreignt journalists are in syria currently, from any reputable sources?.174.91.111.201 (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

thers an article here - huffington post article on anniversary of marie colvin killing - Sayerslle (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

copyright violation?

My small edit got r/v because of so called "copyright violation", and I have no idea what copyrights I violated. Was I not supposed to use any sources? The infobox looks like crap and I was cleaning it by removing names of figures that are no longer on the scene (like Abdulbasset Seida) while returning some important names that got removed months back (like Rustum Ghazaleh). Please, if there really is a "copyright violation" just remove that rather than r/ving the whole thing. Thanks. Moester101 (talk) 05:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Its not possible to edit the infobox in any way. That's called WP:STONEWALLING. I tried to remove the silly list of Syrian government agencies, and was reverted. I tried to remove non-combatants - and was reverted. -- Director (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

You added the Hezbollah and PFLP-GC flags, which are copyrighted and only permitted for use on the main article for each group. Additionally, Iran is a state, not a group. Feel free to trim down the "commanders" list, though. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

items blocked

Hi all,

Why a lot of recent or ongoing items are blocked ? Siege of Homs, Battle of Aleppo, Rif Dimashq offensive (November 2012–present), Battle of Darayya (2012-present), 2012 Hama offensive

Maurcich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.246.105.242 (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

NCC as independent political bloc

The NCC was added to the article as an independent non-state political bloc. Subsequently, it was removed because (i) NCC would be part of the National Coalition and, because it's only just a part of the National Coalition, the existance of the bloc would be insignificant to the whole conflict.

First, is there any source the NCC is part of the National Coalition? According to BBC News and the Doha Institute quoting The 63-member council forms the political body of the Coalition and includes members of most Syrian opposition blocs, with the exception of the National Coordination Committee, the NCC is certainly NOT a part of the National Coalition.

Second, if comparing to BBC News, all the parties mentioned in the BBC article have a seperate heading in the wiki, with the exception of the SNC, being part of the National Coalition AND being explained extensively in that section. Therefore I suggest, the NCC is worth mentioning in the article. Especially because of the pacifist stance in between the government forces on the one side and the National Coalition, supporting the FSA on the other side, including the NCC would counter the image of a Syria being divided into two homogeneous blocs. This, while a majority of the Syrian population is not politically involved and rather does not care too much but to stop the violence between the rivalling parties. (Note: this however does not mean this apolitical majority would affiliate with NCC, I'm not saying that either). --Wormke-Grutman (talk) 07:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The page constantly exceeds 200,000 bytes. And it took alot of work to trim it down.

We can change the National Coalition sections's title to "political groups". We can put it there. But we have to summarize it. Sopher99 (talk) 12:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You do not WP:OWN this article, Sopher. Please accept your edit is opposed. -- Director (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I never said I owned the article. I was giving him a possible solution that fits both of the problems me and Wormke-Grutman are noticing. Sopher99 (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

@Sopher. The content you blanked sports sources that directly contradict your claim in your "reasonable explanation". Should you start edit-warring here over your POV without consensus you can be sure you'll be reported. I believe your behavior on this article exhibits a clear pattern of edit-warring and bullying, and as such its entirety will be brought up for review by the community should you decide take it over the 3RR line this time as well. Please accept your content blanking is opposed and without consensus at present. -- Director (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sopher's edits are supported by the clear majority. They are also balanced. Try accepting that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.217 (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I could certainly accept it if I could see the majority. Where are they? -- Director (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The majority is everyone here who isnt you or funkmonk. And both the Kurds and the FSA are rejecting the Assad dictatorship. This line you are pushing that Kurds love a dictatorship that bars them from both citizenship and political office is bizarro and smacks of the worst kind of reality denialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.243 (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. This hasn't anything to do with Kurds or FSA rejecting Assad's dictatorship. This is on how to include content on the NCC in this article.--Wormke-Grutman (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree to summarize and to change the National Coalition section's title to "political groups". Like we've done for "Ethnic minorities", I propose to make two or three subsections: National Council (SNC), National Coalition and NCC (any other opinion?)

Wow :), how did I know the IP's answer will refer to the "majority" in Syria supporting Assad or whatnot? -- Director (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Because wow, that is how a democracy actually works. Like wow.

I also propose to put sectarianism above "political groups", just under the FSA section. In this way, "political groups will appear just above "ethnic minorities". If no one opposes, I'll make the edit: Re-arranging the political section and compacting the body text.--Wormke-Grutman (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree to all that except switching the order of ethnic minorities with political groups. The Political groups, much like the FSA and Shabiha, make up a physical component to the struggle, while the ethnic minorities lean towards a qualitative side to the war. Best to tell the hard facts first in the article followed by people's "speculation", not the other way around. Sopher99 (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

UN investigators find evidence of war crimes by both sides

The United Nations Human Rights Council commission investigating Syria released on Feb. 18, 2013 a report detailing in 131 pages extensive evidence of war crimes and other abuses in the six months up to mid-January 2013.

The top United Nations human rights official, Navi Pillay, has also urged that Syria be referred to the International Criminal Court. Authority to make such a referral, however, lies exclusively with the Security Council or the country concerned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/world/middleeast/un-rights-panel-says-violence-in-syria-is-mounting.html?_r=0

In their latest report, based on 445 interviews, the investigators said they had found credible evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by both government and opposition forces in the six months to mid-January. The report cited accounts of massacres, summary executions, torture, attacks on civilians, sexual violence and abuses against children.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/world/middleeast/un-rights-panel-says-violence-in-syria-is-mounting.html?_r=0

The report released Monday is to be discussed in the Human Rights Council in March, when member nations appear likely to extend the commission’s mandate. Diplomats in Geneva point out that the panel is the only United Nations-mandated machinery shedding a spotlight on abuses, and that its reports provide the most comprehensive and factual account of how Syria’s conflict is being waged.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/world/middleeast/un-rights-panel-says-violence-in-syria-is-mounting.html?_r=0

See also Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/18/us-syria-crisis-warcrimes-idUSBRE91H06920130218 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs)

The Talk page is neither a news site or a forum. So I don't know what your getting at here. We mention all this in both the human rights abuses section of the article. Also please sign your posts. Sopher99 (talk) 16:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

And yet you continue to make this highly questionable statement. For if Misplaced Pages mentions both sides carrying out human rights abuses, it puts most of the blame on the Syrian government - and attempt to down-play the crimes of the rebels. Why is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.83.41 (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

In the same way during the Holocaust America bombed Dresden but the Holocaust article puts most of the weight on the nazis. Sopher99 (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC) The regime forces commit many many many more crimes, so likewise we have more to report on them. Human rights Groups and the United Nations and journalists who enter Syria all confirm this, so likewise the chances that you will see "something negative" about the Syrian army are significantly higher. For Example, just yesterday the Syrian army threw scuds into Aleppo city. We can create a whole subsection about scud missile attacks on their own people. But we don't due to needed byte-limiting. Sopher99 (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

The Syrian government are the Nazis only in your mind. The comparison is frankly revolting. And as far as I've seen, there's no indication that the army is "committing many many many many many many more crimes" than the rebels. In fact, we don't really know who wins the Crimes Grand Prize.

What we do know is that User:Sopher99 is the resident pro-rebel POV pusher on this talkpage, highly-biased and partisan in his approach, whom edit-wars to have his way at every turn. Not a smidgen of objectivity or proper Misplaced Pages scientific attitude. Nothing he says should be taken as a good-faith contribution to the article. -- Director (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Lol at Sopher's baseless, homemade percentages again. Pleas stop, no one is fooled, nor does anyone give a damn. You like to wave policies around. Go and read up on "original research". FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please FunkMonk, they're not baseless. They're probably based directly on rebel claims. -- Director (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

" Human rights Groups and the United Nations and journalists who enter Syria all confirm this, so likewise the chances that you will see " I did not give any percentage here. But since 50,000 civilians were killed from artillery shelling, protester killing, *scud missiles*, and warplane bombing, as well as the UN human right committee's report on 68,000 missing (with the single biggest cause of that being government abduction, followed by war), you can sure bet that if I was to calculate a percentage for warcrimes, upwards of 98 or 99 percent of it would be placed on the regime. We do not even have 100 known civilians yet killed by Free Syrian army fighters. Unless you want to count in the Syrian government's claim of 1000 Syrian officials killed. Sopher99 (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

As a side note Direktor, the Syrian government are legitimate Nazi's, and not just in the Moniker. The Baath Party is the Arab Socialist party, whose primary ideology is nationalism. Nazi apparently stands for "Nationalsozialismus" so likewise the Baath party are legitimate arab nazis. Sopher99 (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, really? And you're actually opposed to including Israel as their opponent? :) Fascinating.

Seriously though, thank you for your cockamamie lecture, Sopher, but unless you find sources for all your weird claims and random figures - save it for someone who cares. I am fully aware of what Ba'athist ideology entails. -- Director (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

By Human Rights Groups, does that include Amnesty International US? An Organization that (until she resigned recently) had Suzanne Nossel as Executive Director. Suzanne Nossel was Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Assistant for International Organization Affairs. At the State Department Ms Nossel used human rights issues around the world to help push US policy aims. For not only did Ms Nossel launch a campaign against Syria, but she gave the Human Rights Council 'information' that lead to the resolution authorizing war against Libya. Hardly the most independent of people to manage a Human Rights Groups?

'The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.'. Orwell - (by nationalist he here means those who identify with a 'unit', recognising no duty but advancing its interests.) Sayerslle (talk) 19:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• It's disgusting how these western kids see everything through a contemporary/Eurocentric filter. Nationalism and socialism existed long before the Nazi party. They are not the same, and the term "Nazism" can be applied to anything. Early Zionists were "Nazis", by your logic. Like Sayerlel's ridiculous declaration that anyone opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists "agree" with Marie Le Pen. I guess all Liberal and Leftist Arabs agree with far right Europeans, then. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why you're calling us "western kids" considering that you're Danish.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Only by nationality, not ethnicity. In any case, the point stands. The secularists and other infidels who are being strangled by Islamists throughout the Middle East now (with assistance from the West and the Gulf) don't give a damn about Le Pen or Nazis. They care bout survival. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

On Syria,- Marine, not Marie, Le Pen - - how does that differ from your mantra? Evidently they care enough about the Far Right to get her on their TV station. 'Marine LePen has given a television interview to a channel owned by Bashar’s al-Assad cousin, condemning Western and Gulf powers for "aiding" the 22-month uprising against Bashar al-Assad and his regime.' Sayerslle (talk) 07:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Marine-Marie, whatever, just proves my point: we don't give a damn. Western Leftists get boners just from hearing the words "rebel" and "revolution", even when these "revolutionaries" are fighting their fellow Leftists throughout the Middle East. It's laughable. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Assad regime isn't leftist. It is a bizzare Stalinist dictatorship, basically the North Korea of the middle east. Also there are several leftist group in the opposition, if you actually read the Syrian opposition article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.155 (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol, I sure as hell won't read no Misplaced Pages article if I want factual information about the parties in this conflict. And note that I said "Leftists throughout the Middle East". As we speak, Leftists are battling Islamists in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. The Leftists in the Syrian opposition have no power, are peaceful, and are generally not aligned with the Islamists. FunkMonk (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Commanders and leaders

Can we please return the commanders and leaders to the way it was on 11:08, 17 February 2013 as shows a greater list that is currently lacking — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.42.180 (talk)

Attempted Moves toward new rebel government

At the moment, the press is still using the term "Syrian government" to refer to the Assad regime, which is still the only reasonable use of the term, but this interesting news story suggests this might be about to change: "Opposition seeks north Syria government" . Ditto Deutsche Welle . The Economist also has an interesting article here.

What terms should we use as and when there are two entities both claiming to be the sole legitimate government of Syria, each controlling different parts of the country and recognised by different sets of international entities? Perhaps "Ba'ath Party government" and "rebel provisional government" respectively? -- The Anome (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

There was a similar situation during the last years of the Lebanese Civil War. Let's wait and see what the media adopts, instead of making up our own original research names. FunkMonk (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Some people on this site must have a problem with understanding. For despite a general agreement on the need for balance and fairness, they continue to push the term “regime”, when talking about the Syrian government. They also use the loaded title: “Moves toward new rebel government”. Will not the US regime be proud of you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.87.216 (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

1, There is still none so no point in discussing it yet.
2, It will heavily depends on whether that rebel government will be inside Syria and will be taking care of daily needs of areas under their (weak) control like NTC did in Libya or whether it will be government-in-exile with no real power. If later, I don´t really see point in going heavily into this. If former lets take a route like in Libya. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

According to this NYT article, local civilian councils are being set up to govern rebel-held towns.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Renewed support for opposition combatants

Whilst the discussion over the Infobox status of the Kurdish faction and Israel as a belligerent appears to be progressing at a shockingly slow pace (despite the failure of any editors to defend the contradiction between including Turkey and Jordan, whilst exluding Israel from the infobox. As not a single editor has challenged me on this argument); it appears we may need to rethink the NATO power's status in this conflict in light of these new developements.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/middle-east-live/2013/feb/28/syria-crisis-opposition-seeks-military-help-live

I would assert that this latest pro opposition initiative would classify the US as a "supporter" and should perhaps be reinstated in the infobox. Of particular relevence should be the following quotes: 'Some of the $60m in aid will go to rebel military council', 'US reported to be training rebels in a third country', "We ask our friends to give us every backing to achieve gains on the ground and help reach a political solution from a position of strength, not weakness ... We expect to receive political, humanitarian and qualitative military support."

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/02/27/uk-syria-crisis-opposition-idUKBRE91Q17220130227

'Syria opposition to seek "qualitative" military support at Rome meeting' Can there be any doubt at this point of direct US interference in this conflict? Does military "Training" and military "funding" not count as military support? Surely the answer is self evident at this stage in the war. MrDjango (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Once the aid goes through we can put the United States in as a supporter to the FSA. Sopher99 (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• At this point, it's just talk. I think we should wait until actual action is taken, and has an effect on the ground. But the Israeli and Kurdish issues are still very urgent. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Size of the Syrian armed opposition

The New York Times has quoted General Idris of the FSA as saying that there are up to 300,000 rebels of various groups acros Syria. This is probably an exaggeration but perhaps it should be included in the infobox? Kspence92 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.77.238 (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

No. It is certainly not reliable. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

POV infobox

its quite obvious usa continues to support the rebels financially so it should be included in the info box..infobox should not be for military involvement alone..lets not deceive the readers and make it seem like usa & israel are not involved in this syrian destabilization movement..usa pledges 60million ..israel attacks syria Baboon43 (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I've had eliminate the separation between FSA and Mujahideen, as both had same main objective (overthrow Syrian gov.), had combat together against Syrian Army and do not had clashed between them, as for example kurdish forces had done. The only argument to separate FSA and Mujahideen in the infobox is simply personal political interests. Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey baboon mind looking up towards the "renewed support for opposition combatants" section? Sopher99 (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Why you insult people? Its because you dont had any argument? It seems so...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any insults. If you think "baboon" is an insult, it happens to be his literal username. Lots of people call me Sopher on wikipedia. I don't get mad. Sopher99 (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, excuses, I was wrong in this, thinking in other things...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Checking on the Sopher99 page and mention is made of User:"Fanzine999”. This is a sock puppet of Iloveandrea and has been blocked - "indefinitely”. In turn, User:"Iloveandrea” is the operator of an account that has “abusively used one or more accounts" - CheckUser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.61.136 (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Theres a lot of Pot calling the kettle black in all this pov complaining imo. whats "this syrian destabilization movement" if not pov talk?- are scud missiles on its own people part of the "syrian stabilization movement"? saying baboon was not used as a username is OR imo Sayerslle (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Pot calling the kettle black? Lol. I guess it hurts more to be hit by Scud missiles than by suicide and car bombs, huh? FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

so what are you saying? israel can attack a sovereign nation anytime it wants and its still not to be considered involved in the war? Baboon43 (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The whole point for these guys is to not imply in any way that Israel is on the same side as the "rebels". That would undermine their delusional idea that the "revolution" is somehow Leftist and anti-imperialistic in nature. It should be pretty clear by now that it is not. In the same way, the Kurds need to be on the same side as the rebels, because we want to show that the "opposition" is one happy multi-ethnic/confessional force, oh, and its liberal too. Just give it up, you guys, it is getting ridiculous. FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Your on point. Baboon43 (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah because every news report brings fresh news of escalating Israeli involvement doesnt it? er, no. Sayerslle (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

why is usa not in the info box? they pledged 60million. Baboon43 (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Iraq attacks the FSA

--Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Not this again. Turkey attacked the Syrian army several times. The Syrian army attacked Lebanon several times. Israel attacked the Syrian army twice. The Syrian army attacked Jordan Twice. Combatants in the war are those consistently fighting inside Syria. That's why Hezbollah Iran and Ahrar al Sham are in the infobox, but not Iraq Lebanon Jordan Turkey or Papua New Guinea. Sopher99 (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I am still not sure about adding Iran to infobox outside the support. I mean training and logistics are Iranian thing in this conflict but so far their combat involvement has been none or at most limited. Hezbollah is another story, though. They are holding funerals for their "martyrs" every second day. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This NYT article says "Iran has supplied the government with weapons and paramilitary Quds Force advisers", giving the impression that the Iranian forces in Syria don't have a combatant role.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This article gives a different story. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/08/28/iranian-general-admits-fighting-every-aspect-war-in-defending-syria-assad/ besides of which, the FSA captured 47 Iranian rev guards to which they traded for 2000 prisoners. Sopher99 (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to add Iraq in the infobox or anything. I just thought I'll paste the link here just in case it might be useful somehow. Time will show whether or not Iraq will be dragged into this conflict. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Iraq seems to disagree with you. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Typical sectarian double standard based on the political ideas of some editors. Its the only argument to include Iran in the infobox but not include Iraq or Lebanon. This type of POV is what makes WP less reliable every day... Ah, I'm gonna add again & again the POV banner, as only a blind dont see that at least dozens of editors (see talk page) consider this article as POV or unbalanced. Other thing would be simply censorship...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Iran has 15,000 elite troops in Syria, and has even admitted its involvement. What more does it take? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

15.000 troops according to what? The "rebels"? FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

According to that notorious western imperialist mouthpiece Renmin Ribao as reported by FSA stooges Russia Today . ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

40 Syrian regime soldiers killed in Iraq

They retreated into Iraq after the opposition captured the Yaarubiyeh border crossing in Syrian Kurdistan. Apparently they were unwelcome as only a day later they have been massacred: Attackers 'kill Syrian soldiers' in Iraq.

US State Department 'information'? That said, since most of the BBC report was from the so-called "Syrian" Observatory for Human Rights based in the UK - how much trust should be placed on it? 81.141.83.23 (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

They were obviously not killed by Iraqi soldiers. Al Qaeda in Iraq operates across the border, if no one has noticed yet. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

So neither the Iranians or Syrians have confirmed it. Could just be a propaganda boost from the Chinese to make their support for Syria seem less like a waste of resources to their own public. In any case, it is only one, quite indirectly involved, source. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

National Defence Force

Seems there is a new multi-sect pro-Assad militia, which unites all the previous ones. "Order in the city appeared to be largely enforced by the 10,000 paramilitaries of the NDF, made up largely of Christians and Alawites from the ruling religious group who fear retribution from the mainly Sunni rebels. However, about 4,000 members of the force are Sunnis loyal to Assad.". Should replace Jesh al-Shaabi in the infobox. ~~

See Talk:Jaysh al-Sha'bi. ~Asarlaí 02:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ignored background

Here's a nice article all the way back from 2007 that explains that the Bush administration was already in contact with Muslim Brotherhood groups back then to put pressure on Assad. Needs to be mentioned under background, it is a huge oversight. Puts the whole "revolution" into perspective. "The White House views Syria -- along with its allies, Iran and militant groups Hezbollah and Hamas -- as a main threat to stability in the Middle East. So it is exploring the potential benefits of engaging with the Brotherhood. Despite its checkered record, the Sunni group could provide a counterweight against the rising influence of Shiite political power in the region. It could also, the reasoning goes, emerge as a force for democratic change.

The U.S. has traditionally avoided contact with the Brotherhood across the Middle East. But now the State Department and National Security Council have begun to hold regular strategy sessions on Syria policy with the NSF and is funding an organization linked to it. Senior officials from the State Department and the National Security Council confirm the meetings. The U.S. has also discussed with the NSF and linked groups ways to monitor elections and promote civil society in Syria." FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Bush asking the Muslim Brotherhood to promote civil society 6 years ago? SO IT IS A CONSPIRACY! ALL EVENTS IN SYRIA PEGGING FROM THE HAMA MASSACRE TO THE DARAA PROTESTS TO AL NUSRA TO SCUD MISSILES CAN BE ROOTED TO BUSH ASKING THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TO BE MORE CIVIL! The Revelations.... Sopher99 (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol, I knew you would respond like that. Yes, this "revolution" has been waiting since 1982, and the MB has just taken advantage of the poor peaceful protesters we saw fleetingly in the very beginning, until a bunch of policemen were gunned down in March 2011. If the US government has coordinated tactics with the MB, then yes, that is a "conspiracy" by the very definition of the world. In any case, it needs to be mentioned that these relations go back to way before the conflict began. We don't need to imply what it means in the article, because it speaks for itself. But I guess that is enough to make you fight tooth and nail against its inclusion, no? We wouldn't let the pet-rebels be painted in a bad light. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You overestimate the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood do not hold command of any Islamist fighters in Syria. And that is saying alot because the amount of islamist fighters now rivals Afghanistan, and certainly exceeds Somalia and Yemen. People like the leaders of Ahrar al sham have had 10000x times the influence the MB had on Syria. Not a single islamist fighter in Syria would tell you he began fighting on suggestion of the MB. 1000x more people would sooner tell you they are fighting for the sake of Abu Golani, and those are still a minority of the fighters. The MB is not in Syria, and what more is that Moaz al Khatib, who actually lived in Syria all the way to 2012, has hundreds of times more influence than the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, as he was the iman of ummayad mosque and he actually knew people. Other than a few hundred people lobbying in Turkey, the SMB is pretty much non-existent. Sopher99 (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the article's inclusion, first off we need to be subscribers to see that article, so we can't even verify if what your saying is correct. Second its original research, but both of those arguments pale into comparison to the fact that it is fringe - for suggesting that Bush asking the MB to be democratic is a root cause of the conflict - and not notable, because we have no source saying that Bush ended up having an effect nor do we have any source saying that this incident remotely had any effect on the Syrian conflict Sopher99 (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol, you're the resident expert in throwing up unsourced speculation as if it was fact. The thing is, Qatar supports the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the FSA, and Saudi supports the Salafists, which is the rest of the Islamist fighters. Anyhow, it's besides the point. That article explains the US gov supported and coordinated tactics with the main Syrian opposition group ("National Salvation Front") all the way back then, and that's important to mention. If it doesn't indicate a "conspiracy", why are you then afraid to add that single sentence? Will you come with a page size excuse? Wasn't it you or one of the other in the gang that added a completely usleess paragraph about "anonymous" turning against the regime, as if that had any significance in real life? As for the articles "intentions", I could access it without subscription just a few hours ago. And please spare us of your imaginary numbers and percentages. Everyone is ignoring them by now. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The Muslim Brother hood is not the FSA. Not single member of the FSA - secular or Salfist - has a single thought about the muslim brotherhood on his mind. I am not afraid of adding. I am simply telling you its not noteworthy. We have no signs or sources whatsoever that a) bush actually had an effect on the MB, or b) this had any remote effect on the conflict at all. Sopher99 (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you're incredible. You know what individual members of the FSA are thinking. And you know every number and percentage, allegiance and motive, related to this conflict, though even US intelligence agencies don't have a clue. I gather you don't know Arabic, or have any actual relations to the conflict, other than Internet research. Are you aware of how ridiculous these claims sound? And yes, the FSA is controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood. Defected Syrian soldiers flee to Turkey where the MB opposition organises them in the FSA. They own it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thats correct. When you following on Twitter dozens of dozens of people within syria, including the FSA batallions and contacts, from day 1 you tend to know a bit more than cia heads who just sit on their desk worrying about stability. By your logic the cia knows alot more about the Syrian situation than you do, so why don't you listen to them?. I am telling you the truth, ahrar al sham, the islamic front, al nusra , and everyone in between do not give a damn about 3 or 4 "muslim brotherhood" leaders in Turkey. Their spiritual leaders happen to be within Syria, or fighting alongside them, except in the case of Abu Golani. The MB does not organize anyone. Erdogan's men do. Jesus Christ. Sopher99 (talk) 14:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless you provide a RS source that links this Bush initiative or whatever you say it was , as a part of the background to understanding the background to the Civil war, - then its just OR. Sayerslle (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It shows that the US supported the opposition long before the conflict. That is all that needs to be added in the article. And the source itself is an RS. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

@FunkMonk - i can't read the article -its pay to read. what I read doesnt really endorse what you are claiming - it would be a great Assad-ian POV leap to arrive at what you are saying from the short paragraphs i read. Sayerslle (talk) 14:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

As I said, it was online when I posted it. Google, madapacka, do you speak it? A mirror: FunkMonk (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Lulz at Sopher... Are you seriously telling me that because you follow Twitter, a certified rumour mill, you know more than everyone else? You don't think the CIA follows Twitter? Are you that delusional? I knew people who have actually fought and died in this conflict, and your "Twitter accounts" have as little significance in real life as a dead rat. It is preposterous, you guys must see very little action in real life, since you volunteer as Misplaced Pages POV warriors, and probably think you can influence history or some other conceited nonsense. And Erdogan's party is a Muslim Brotherhood offshoot, so yes, whoever controls the FSA in Turkey is part of the MB. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Your delusional. Thousands have died in Syria to show the world whats happening. Specifically activists. Your just a Lebanese guy in Denmark who can't get over the fact that a supporter of the March 8th bloc is being brought down after 50 years of oppression. Erdogan is a "light" Islamist. Islamists and the MB are not a bad thing. Salifists are. I assure you America has crazier people than Islamists like Rick Santorum and Sarah Palin, but we do just fine. Its the people throwing scuds at their own nation who are the problem. Sopher99 (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol. What you don't understand is that you don't need to support either armed side, especially when you're not involved in any way. You seem to think you're on some kind of noble quest to save a doomed revolution. And in the process, you ignore all the unaligned secular groups, that do not support either Assad or the Islamist rebels. Those are the ones who need your zealous help, not the mercenaries who fight for the Saudis and the Turks. The regime use Scuds against "their own people". The rebels use suicide and car bombs "their own people". Big fucking difference, huh? Supporting either is morally indefensible, yet you seem to have no problem doing just that. I've visited Syria and lived in north Lebanon within the past years, so excuse me if I find your Twitter arguments unconvincing. I'm personally affected by this conflict, yet I don't even use a quarter of the time you spend here on POV-warring. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not against "unaligned secular group" . You don't see me talking about them because this is the Syrian civil war. Notice the "civil" and the "war". Same goes for you. Syria doesn't need the support for the Hezbollah and Iranian mercenaries. All you have proven is that you hate the "muslim brotherhood". People who I listen to lived in Syria right now for decades. So excuse me if I find your arguments unconvincing. Sopher99 (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Saad Hariri lived in lebanon longer than you. I think I'll listen to him over you regarding lebanon affairs. Sopher99 (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Everyone from the region has known an Islamic uprising was underway in Syria since 1982. That it took you and other Westerners by surprise and you now think you're part of history and know what's happening on the ground because you've followed Twitter for a couple of years is simply conceited beyond belief. You don't think opposition Twitterers might have an interest in spreading rumours and lying to you? Do you just lap it all up? It has become an industry now to make naive westerners feel "part of it", and show them around in bombed out buildings and refugee camps. And to be down with the rebel kids on Twitter. LOL. Much of my family lived in Homs until recently. They won't be going back, for obvious reasons. Overrun with Salafists, that is. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

What lying? I have plenty of video evidence (that is in the hundreds of thousands of videos) ( not mention on the ground independent reports by journalists, and later confirmations by SOHR). Very hypocritical of you considering that Syria has a ministry of information (ie ministry of propaganda). Blah blah blah westerners know nothing I have families in Syria blah blah - yeah and so does every one of the 60,000 people Assad has killed. You won't be returning to Homs because Homs has been obliterated by artillery shelling. 800,000 displaced. Not to mention the shabiha thugs running around establishing "alawite" markets of stolen goods from Sunni residents. Face it, with 3 million internally displaced, 1 million refugees, -40% GDP, 200,000 randomly imprisoned, 70,000 dead and 3 billion in damage of Aleppo alone, Assad has turned Syria into a place worse than Somalia. Sopher99 (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol. Because videos and Twitter posts can't be faked, and the "rebels" are not doing exactly the same things as the government. I've made my point. Keep living in your Revolution Disney Land™. FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

A few? yes. Hundreds of thousands? No. Verified videos? No. Ive made my point. Keep living in your Chavistsan foreign conspiracy land. Sopher99 (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol. No such videos should be believed, be they government or rebel produced. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for showing the only 3 faked opposition videos over the course 2 years out of hundreds of thousands. You are really breaking the barriers of sanity here. 6 videos, 3 of which opposition 3 of government? You got to be kidding me. Sopher99 (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol, yes, because I want to waste my time and link to the dozens of other faked videos that have been uploaded. That was one link in a quick Google search. Do you think I care? Won't change your mind anyway. The insurgents could behead your mom, and you would still cheer for them. FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

And Assad and his shabiha could knife your entire family, let alone cluster bomb them, and you will still cheer for them. But you feel safe in Syria because your a "fellow alawite"Sopher99 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

getting a bit out of hand ? it should be content not contributors - going on about 'a little gang of internet revolutionaries' 'conceited' etc doesnt help does it , just makes it personal - content not contributors is the rule, funmonk, youre quick to cite OWN and such , what about content , not contributors? Sayerslle (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope, because I'm not pro-Assad, and have never claimed to be so. There can be no viable Syrian state with either the Ba'ath or MB in power. We need a secular, multi-confessional government, consisting of people who never took up arms. But as things are looking now, it will probably end up with a Ba'ath/MB power sharing arrangement, which is a shame. Nice try, though. As it is now, you're playing into the hands of the extremists on both sides. FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thats all besides the point. 1- This bush thing is original research. There is not a single source saying that this ties into the conflict in any way shape or form.

2- Its not notable. Yes America is going to support opposition in undemocratic countries. Duh. Second of all this is 'moral support and guidance. Not physical support. If bush right now supported the MB, we still wouldn't put it in the article because its not physical support. Sopher99 (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I repeat: "Despite its checkered record, the Sunni group could provide a counterweight against the rising influence of Shiite political power in the region. It could also, the reasoning goes, emerge as a force for democratic change." That is not my interpretation. That is what the source says. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

thats a couple of administrations ago and a Republican administration - do you have RS that can help show how did the Obama administration carry on this plot to get rid of Assad with Salafist help?Sayerslle (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ill repeat. What does this have to do with the Syrian civil war? Rhetorical Politics with a group outside Syria 6 years ago has nothing to do with the background of the Syrian civil war. There is not a single source in all of sourceland that connects this with the Syrian civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 16:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is that the US has been involved with the Syrian opposition and the MB for years before the uprising. Readers can make up their own mind on what that means, and I'm not proposing anything that's not in the article should be added. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This stuff is completely undue. The article is already too long. Let's just keep things simple.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Says the guy who devoted a paragraph to the non-event that "anonymous" turned against the Syrian government. The double standards here are amazing. FunkMonk (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

POV tags getting removed

Some users keep removing the POV tags, and claim there are no POV issues. That's easy to say, because their POV is the one presented in the article! We have several problems, I will list a few below.

• The Kurdish issue is not resolved. The Kurdish militants are a third, separate force.
• The foreign backers issue is not resolved.
• The foreign belligerents issue is not resolved.
• The background issue is not resolved.

Once these issues are resolved, the tags can be removed, and NOT before. FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Care to explain to me how any of these are pov pushing? Especially when its your point of view that is trying to be pushed? Sopher99 (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand the POV tags. If there is disagreement about the balance of an article, the tags need to be there to show readers that the neutrality is disputed. Of course you don't think there are such issues, but that is simply because your POV is the one presented! FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality is not being disputed, because everything you are disagreeing with is backed up by uncontested reliable sources. Sopher99 (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No, because what's in the article is your interpretation of those sources. These issues have been discussed many, many times, the problem is, we have a little gang of Internet revolutionaries who think they own the article, and need to protect their pet-rebels from bad publicity. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• And now we're edit warring over a friggin' POV tag!? This article has clear POV issue,s otherwise we wouldn't have so much damn trouble on the talk page and so much edit warring. Come to your senses, for feck's sake. The article is not neutral by any stretch of the imagination. Until the issues are resolved, the tags stay. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that we have a POV pushing gang consisting og Futuretrillionaire, Sopher, and perhaps one other, who tag team revert every edit that goes against their agenda, on a page they think they own. They then claim proposals that have simply been bullied out by them were not implemented due to "discussions", even when consensus is clearly against them. This needs to be taken care of. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

im not sure why the POV tags are quickly removed as if editors are trying to hide something..my question is why is the usa & israel are not in the info box while you have iran hezbollah etc..there's enough RS that says usa has now given the rebels non lethal aid & israel has attacked syria several times. Baboon43 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

If you want to know why try checking the archives of the countless times we discussed this. Sopher99 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

And if you look at the archives, you can see that there is usually either no consensus, or consensus against Sopher and co. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thats your opinion Funkmunk. I see 3 users: DIREKTOR, Baboon43, Funkmunk, who POV push and find every detail they can from the gutter to try to put it on equal weight with widely sourced content, in a bid to fight some sort of "western propaganda". Sopher99 (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, we hardly ever implement anything, because it is reverted on sight by Kool and the Gang here. We always discuss on the talk page instead. Furthermore, I, Direktor, and Baboon rarely ever post here, while you and Trillionaire zealously hang around 24-7, so I don't exactly see how we are the POV pushers. You guys simply think you own the page. It's plain and simple. The rest of us don't care much, but we recognise POV-pushing when we see it and have to speak up. Many others have noticed this too, but editors are leaving this page in droves, because they're fed up with your methods. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

is that how you settle a dispute by saying "look at the archives or "its already been discussed"..well discuss it again..there's RS that says usa has given support why is saudi in there and not the u.s.a? how am i pov pushing when i havnt edited the article? regardless of weather you think my discussion is pov or not, its whats in the article that matters. Baboon43 (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

On that issue you brought, we have already said that once the support lands in Syria as promised, we would put the USA in the infobox. Ironically Funkmunk is against putting USA in infobox, suggesting to "wait things" out Sopher99 (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no "irony" involved, since we have waited already. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

the rebels wont announce they have received the aid..its been pledged last month so they are receiving the aid..aside from that israel needs to be in the box as well..they have attacked syria. Baboon43 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This tag edit warring has to stop. I don't know whether or not the article needs these maintenance tags; however, this should be decided by discussion, not by edit warring. If you really can't agree, please use dispute resolution, but do not edit war the tags back and forth. This is a final warning - anyone who continues edit warring with the tags (by which I mean edits the tags on the page, even if they don't technically break 3RR) will be blocked. ItsZippy 19:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Syria articles
• Top-importance Syria articles
• WikiProject Syria articles
• B-Class Arab world articles
• High-importance Arab world articles
• WikiProject Arab world articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment