Talk:Syrian civil war

"Deaths" Section

This section needs help. Does there really need to be both governorate and city deaths sections? Why is the whole section scattered with mentions of government fatalities not being included, why are these numbers not included? Why are so many different figures being included? I would like to alter the section to make it more systematic. However, I know this will be a conversational course of action. Thoughts? XantheTerra (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There are so many different figures being included because there are many variations of the death toll. We include any relevant claim. (like the Human rights watch, UN, LCC, Syrian government)

Some of these claims state that they are only referring to the death toll of the opposition, and that they do not know the death toll of the government's forces. We have to mention this.

We did the same thing for the Libyan civil war, a box which included several variations of the death toll. It is unlikely that any one team/group has the exact death toll, especially with such a discrepancy between the Syrian goverment's claim, the UN, and the LCC (a Syrian network of civilians on the ground in Syria.)

I see no reason to change it. Sopher99 (talk) 12:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems so redundant though. I see no need to included a section on total deaths, then by region and then again by city given that each time the information is hard to verify and deaths in one category are already included in another. I think it would be best to have the various estimated figures for the whole country and then highlight a few key areas. Excessive quoting of different statistics is not helpful given the variation among them. This just means more numbers to verify and update. XantheTerra (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The death toll by city was only added a month and a half ago by someone who just felt it could be useful info. The box about the variations of the death toll we got to keep though.

I don't think the death toll by city is hurting the quality of the article, but if you want to delete you can if the other primary users agree. I am ok with deleting death toll by city, but not death toll by province. Sopher99 (talk) 00:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the death toll by city for the following reasons. All data included in it already appears in the tables above it. The data presented would also need to be updated often, which was not happening. And having so many tables was contributing, by my reading, to a rather fractured article. XantheTerra (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

We noted by a * in the combatant section that the Syrian Martyrs and The Violation Documentation Centre sources don't include government forces fatalities. And we also stated right before the overall table of deaths that the LCC and VDC estimates also don't include government forces fatalities. So I think it's pretty clear. At this point we include the tolls given by the opposition (VDC, LCC and Syrian Martys), the government, United Nations and a semi-opposition group (SOHR). We include all of them because they all give varrying death tolls that don't add up to each other. I also don't mind removing the city-by-city toll. EkoGraf (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Reference 289, the reference for the UN reporting 10,000 deaths, is misreferenced. It is a reference to the english language version of the Chinese news website "People's Daily Online." The PDO article does not cite its sources. In order to label the listed number of 10,000 deaths was reported by the UN, primary sources or documentation from the UN must be cited. Any UN official release or paper on findings from the region citing these numbers will do, but it must be from the UN. Otherwise that portion of the reported deaths taple must be either deleted or relabled so it says that those numbers were actually reported by the Chinese site PDO, not the UN. I will make the change if no UN reference is cited. 134.11.154.97 (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll take care of it soon. Sopher99 (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Arrests and Convictions

Curious about this text in the arrests and convictions section

Many news outlets reported that a prominent LGBT anti-government blogger called Amina Arraf was allegedly arrested by Syrian authorities, but questions arose of whether she was a real person in the first place.[297] She later tuned out to be an American man blogging under a false name, who had used a photo of a random British woman as that of "Amina".[298]

Zainab al-Hosni, who was claimed to have been detained and beheaded by Syrian authorities, later turned out to be alive.[299]

People thought these events took place, but they actually did not. While I personally find the first story rather interesting I don't know if this is the place for it. The second line is presented without any context at all, and presents barely any of the back story detailed in the link. Do we keep stuff that did not actually happen? XantheTerra (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That hoax seemed significant at that time because it occurred when people still believed that protesters were drugged induced salifists from Afganistan. Sopher99 (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I view these facts a picture of the article as a whole. This page is filled with unconnected facts that have no connecting material. How many people hold with the salifist angle now anyway? I for one, think that because this so called arrest of the blogger did not occur, does not belong in the section called "arrests". XantheTerra (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not even a something doesn't occur, the arrest of a blogger is more than a routine a Syria --aad_Dira (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC).

It's a civil war now

It's a civil war now and it is called "civil war" by more and more media and politicians. So let's move the article to "Syrian civil war"! -Metron (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

more and more media such as? I7laseral (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight, it's a civil war if enough websites say it is? This is absurd. Yes, there is unrest, but the oposition controls no territory and the government is in no apparent danger of ceasing to function any time soon. Call it a civil war if you must, but so far it's been an extremely one-sided civil war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.11.154.97 (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The FSA does have territory, the Idlib province, the Deir Ezzor province, Daraa, the northern half of Homs, Talsibeh and Rastan. The Somalian government is in no danger of ceasing to function any time soon. Still a Somali civil war. I7laseral (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I said "control." While the FSA operates in those areas, they control no provinces or districts. Your comparison to Somalia is a poor one. The Somali government only very barely functions and provides only minimal and inconsistent services to its population. The Syrian government functions largely as usual and continues to provide normal, day to day services (such as sanitation, trash removal, fire, and police services) to the vast majority of its population. 134.11.154.97 (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sanitation and fire are not taken care of by the Syrian government except in Central Damascus and Central Aleppo, Latakia and Tartous. Police and the army are one entity now. Syria had the lowest Human development index of all arab nations except for Yemen before the uprising even began. The Somali government in Somaliland and Central Mogadashu functions perfectly fine. I7 has a point though, a civil war could be like the one in Algeria, 1992-2002, Shri lanka 1976-2009, , none of which the ruling governments were in jeopardy. Keep in mind civil wars last an average of 5 or 6 years. It took 3 years for Somalians to oust Siand Barre, 3 years for Liberians to Oust Charles Taylor, and 9 years for Ugandans to oust Idid Amin. Sopher99 (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh 7,00 pus dead, its not a civil war, just a misunderstanding. I doubt the government controls all the country or the rebels control none. The reports are patchy and unreliable. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

no,the FSA controls alot of territory along the turkish and lebonanese borders,and the proof is that they can't even free the kidnapped lebonanese — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.200.186 (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

UN Officials are now calling it a civil war http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/06/12/annan-says-syria-conflict-is-now-civil-war/. Does it count now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.14.28 (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Censorship: Spill over to Lebanon, Dmitry Medvedev's remark

Substantial parts of my change on the spill over to Lebanon have been reverted.

Firstly, the spill over to Lebanon is important and it belongs into the time line.

Secondly, User:I7laseral claims (without substantiation) that Medvedev's remark during international legal forum in St. Petersburg about the danger of "a full-blown regional war" and the "use of nuclear weapons" was (only) about Iran. This is not true. Medvedev made a general statement and the international media has interpreted it also on Syria, e.g. here.

User:I7laseral can not revert these changes without moving the contents elsewhere.

This is censorship. --Dinarsad (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Here you got a report about the U.S. Embassy in Beirut being wary of Syrian spillover. It says, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Maura Connelly met with Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati to express her concern about regional events. Isn't this enough of a proof that these concerns are funded?

I will now recover my changes above.

@User:I7laseral: Please not revert my changes again without stating your position on both topics. --Dinarsad (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• That's not censorship. The remark was taken out of context. The remark about full blown regional war, that was about syria, the remark about the use of nuclear weapons, that was a thinly veiled remark about Iran. I know of no country who has suggested or even mentioned nuclear weapons in regards to syria, and as far as I know, Syria does not possess nuclear weapons. Removing that line does not mean he HAS to move it elsewhere. Trust me, that is not censorship, it just making the article more accurate. Jeancey (talk) 01:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This is your private theory, Jeancey. Medvedev spoke generally about "such actions, which undermine state sovereignty". Note also, the sentence in the RIA Novosti report: "The right of nations to choose their own path of development is a universal value, he said referring to the situation in Syria and the Middle East as a whole ahead of a G8 summit." This refers directly to Syria. If you have problems to understand this, the statement by Guido Westerwelle gives you a hint. He spoke about the danger of "Moscow and Bejing" being dragged in. And also Westerwelle spoke directly about Syria. So there can be no doubt that these statements were related to the Syrian uprising and how the international community deals with is. --Dinarsad (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not Censor you. The info you put in did not warrant its own section. I took out the Medvedev thing because he was not directly referring to Syria. I7laseral (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Check this diff, I put what you wrote into a different section. I did not delete your edits, but changed them in good faith. I7laseral (talk) 02:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_uprising_(2011–present)&diff=493587891&oldid=493587675 — Preceding unsigned comment added by I7laseral (talk • contribs) 02:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jeancy, the remark by Medvedev was taken out of context. It doesn't matter if he was talking about sovereignty, he was not talking directly about Syria (which does not even have nukes).

Also what you wrote belongs in the foreign involvement section. Furthermore the section name you gave was way too long. I7laseral (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that it 100% does not need its own section. The comment about regional war might be put under the international reaction section as a single sentence, but definitely not its own. It just simply isn't important enough of a comment. Russia has been saying the same thing about full blown regional war for months now. Jeancey (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

(1) Please see my reply to Jeancey above. (2) Note, the Russian government (incl. Prime Minister Medvedev) perceives this conflict not as an isolated uprising, but as a proxy war. The same is true for the German Foreign Minister. You may think Westerwelle's and Medvedev's statements are not important and can be left aside, but they did have an influence. Guess why Obama came up with the idea to use "Yemen as a model" for Syria? This was directly after the G8 summit and Obamas speaker even said that Syria was an important topic at the summit. [Here you got] a report on it: U.S. tells G8 Syria's Assad must go, cites Yemen as model. It sais Obama came up with the Yemen model after Medvedev's statements.

If these factors of influence ((1) and (2)) are not mentioned in this article, this is nothing but blunt cencorship.

Note, already (1) is enough to make the cause for Medvedev's statment being mentioned.

How can one campaign for freedom of speech in Syria and at the same time play the role of a censor? --Dinarsad (talk) 02:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, this is a broad overview article that is massively too long as it is. We have been trying to cut it down while preserving information for a while now. A small comment like that certainly doesn't need its own section and doesn't really belong here at all. We aren't trying to censor anything. If you will look at my comment above I suggested that it go in the International reactions to the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising article. It is simply too small of a comment to put in THIS article. I'm not saying it shouldn't be on wikipedia, just not here. Jeancey (talk) 02:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleting criteria we find unworthy is not the same thing as censorship. Also Obama's staff had been talking about the Yemen model far before the G8 summit. Its not a result of Russia.

Dozens of ministers have been issuing thousands of statements in the past 14 months about Syria. All of them go into the international reactions page. I7laseral (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

International reactions to the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising I7laseral (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I am also of the opinion that is article is to long and has to many isolated facts filling the page with excessive citations. We need to work to condense and assemble the information into a coherent article, not added every new facet as it comes in. This contributes to the fragmentation of the article. XantheTerra (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• XantheTerra, I'm with you on condensing the section on the Lebanese events. It is still necessary to collect a relevant set of occurrences and statements, in order to adequately reflect the situation in a coherent article. If the spillover to Lebanon continues, there will probably be a separate article. --Dinarsad (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"Spillover to Lebanon" or just "Events in Lebanon"?

I7lasaer believes the term "Events in Lebanon" was "more precise" and argues that a "spillover discribes people from Syria instigating the fight". I think he is wrong: spillover to Lebanon is more precise. Moreover, if I7lasaer's argument is criterion, then clearly we do have a spillover: Here is an article from April 2012 reporting about "Syrian troops crossing the border [to Lebanon] in pursuit of rebel soldiers". Note, the article says it was not the first time the Lebanese border was crossed by the Syrian army.

I think there should be an opportunity to speak about the pros and cons of each view. --Dinarsad (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• It is my personal opinion that the word 'spillover' is more subjective and therefore less precise. Also, the word 'events' is more encyclopedic. It would be okay to use 'spillover' in the text, but I don't think it is appropriate for a heading title. Jeancey (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Also like I said, spill over implies that specific actions taken from the rebels/Syrian army from Syria into Lebanon are the cause. Not the case Lebanonese citizens and militia vs Lebanonese citizens and militia. I7laseral (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping "Events in Lebanon" as title. But I can not agree with I7laseral on the interpretation of "spillover". That term fits also, if the fightings are a result of an tectonic shift in Lebanon politics, that was caused by the events in Syria. Here is an example: LBC: Mikati quit Dar al-Fatwa meeting over statement. — The Lebanes Prime Minister left this meeting, as it demanded a statement by the Syrian Foreign Minister regarding "some Lebanese regions along the border with Syria" be denounced. The background is apparently, that the clerics within this meeting feel some degree of solidarity with the groups that were called "members of Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood" by the Syrian FM. There was apparently no action from the Syrian side, except this letter to Ban Ki-Moon. --Dinarsad (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The section needs to be cut shorter, it is not in Syria, and there is now an article about it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• It is now much shorter. Removing "Events in Lebanon" entirely were wrong since both are clearly related. --Dinarsad (talk) 21:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Start date

The lead says 26 January and the info box says 15 March. I believe it's 15 March and have heard this in the anniversary of the uprising on Al Jazeera. Mohamed CJ (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not think this event has a set day that we can say it started and would be more comfortable by naming a month. XantheTerra (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Based on this BBC timeline, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-14703995, I would think it would be march. XantheTerra (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Fatah al-Islam fights in Syrien against Assad

Sopher99 reverted my last contribution and claims there were "an agreement in the talk page archives in which we agreed in consensus not to include fateh al islam". I couldn't find such an agreement. When I searched, I found two discussions with Fatah al-Islam being mentioned. But it was mentioned only as a sideline. Please help me to find the corresponding thread with that "agreement". In the meantime I'll restore my changes. Note, Fatah al-Islam was involved (at least) in the 2006 German train bombing plot. --Dinarsad (talk) 15:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the 2011- present. What happened in 2006 does not matter.

Furthermore they are dubious belligerents - Belligerents who may have a presence of fighting in Syria' but are not official belligerents. I can only agree to having Fateh al Islam in the infobox if Hezbollah is included also, and from then on its gets very messy (like Libya Turkey Hama Pershmega Al Mahdi army Iran ect). A few dozen fighters in Syria does not constitute being in the belligerent box unless they were hired. Only belligerents who were hired or belligerents whose official leader states they have operatives in Syria should be included. Sopher99 (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The case of Fatah al-Islam is different, since a known member was killed in Syria. Nothing like that can be said for any of the other groups, apart from maybe the Libyans. FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

We have no sources other than a pro assad minister claiming it. Considering that European/American ministers have claimed Hezbollah to be in Syria, there is equal weight. Sopher99 (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The very same source (= TIME magazine) is cited here, which is a anti-Assad site. You'll agree me, after you've read the articles "Sons of Idlib" Part I + II in Comments section at nowlebanon.com. Note, this is the site where Michael Weiss released several articles. Weiss is the author of this article. He argues effectively for a military intervention through a "buffer zone" at the Turkish-Syrian border. --Dinarsad (talk) 18:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Are you basing the fact that Now Lebanon is anti-assad based on the comments on articles? Because that is ridiculous. Maybe I misunderstood you. Jeancey (talk) 18:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

To make it short and easy: would you call nowlebanon.com and times.com a pro assad site? --Dinarsad (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

NowLebanon is owned by the Hariri family, there's nothing to discuss. FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Thing many accused its of (naturally because it´s strong pro-M14 stance), yet no one up to this day presented any proof. Not even mentioning that Hariri clan and FM already owns several medias they proudly present as their own (same goes for LF). That aside, no matter how I am looking at it, aside of one Fatah al-Islam casultie (and Fatah al-Islam was operating in Syria before) I can´t see much of a proof of group involvement. Same goes for Hezbollah, which participation is sourced mostly by rumours about rocket attack on Zabadani and accusation of other side (it is the same as when opposition accuses Assad of using Mahdis Army, while Assad accuses opposition of beein Al-Queda, reanimated MB military wing and such). Both should be removed. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• FunkMonk has a valid point. In case of Fatah al-Islam we have bipartisan reports about a person that is known by name. I see no reason to doubt the these reports. --Dinarsad (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

A few dozen infiltrators do not count as belligerents. The PKK, Pershmega, Al Mahdi Army, Libya, Hezbollah, and Hamas all take part in the fighting, but do not belong in the infobox. Whatever, add Fateh Islam then, but don't complain when I add hezbollah. Sopher99 (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

If you can present trustworthy reports about PKK's etc. participation in the suppression of the militant revolt, you can add them. All I could find so far on PKK was a report about a PKK raid against the Turkish army. But the report smells: the "Dörtyol" district is at the very west of the Turkish border to Syria. I have never heard that PKK attacks Turkey in this area. — But anyways. If you have thrustworthy reports on Hezbollah, Iranian revolution guards etc: add them. --Dinarsad (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Once again on the PKK. Here you got a German language article. It says that since begin of the uprising "between 1200 and 1500" PKK fighters came over the border from Iraq and that they had formed self-protection militia in kurdish-settled areas of Syria. It says even they'd control Kurdish quarters of larger Syrian cities. — But it does not say that they participate in the suppression of the militant revolt. --Dinarsad (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Hezbollah

I don't get your story about Hezbollah, Sopher99. The first link you've provided claims there had been a rocket attack from Lebanon to Syria by Hezbolla. We can not know if these attacks really took place. All we know is that a FSA-member was telling this story to Michael Weiss as to justify for "rebels’ targeting of power lines and water mains in the country" (side-note: usually terror organisations are doing such things). But anyways. Even if this FSA story is true, it was no accident inside Syria, but an international accident between Lebanon and Syria. The next link (yalibnan.com) reports about a "report by Israeli daily Haaretz" which reports about "Western intelligence reports". (you'll agree that "Western interelligence" is not actually specific). What the article (about the report about the report) says is "that Iranian officers and Hezbollah militants have supplied arms to Syrian troops and trained". This may be true, but if we add all international parties who supply arms and train troops (pro and anti-Assad), we'd get a very long list! What counts finally is that neither these Iranian officers nor Nezbollah have actually participated with the suppression of the militant (or non-militant) revolt. — For that reason, I'll remove Hezbollah from the list. It's simply off-topic --Dinarsad (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

1- An attack from inside lebanon on the FSA is still a belligerant action. NATO attacked with planes onto Libya from Crete, still a belligerent.

2- The time's source were not specific, just "have learned form sources".

3- Not an accident, how often does Hezbollah fire rockets into Syria?

Assad's army destroyed half the city of homs including water supply and power lines. Hundreds of thousands of Homeless. (and by the way only terrorists do that *sarcasm*). Sopher99 (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Here it says, that Hezbollah fired rockets at "civilians near Damascus" . Yet the folks from ynetnews.com apparently don't believe this themselfs, since they write this was a claim(!) by "the Syrian Revolutionary Coordination Union, one of the more outspoken opposition groups in the country". I can not believe that Hezbollah could have known who would finally be hit by such rockets. Do you? — If not, then you'll agree that the whole story is hardly plausible.

(As for "half the city of Homs" being destroyed, I tend to believe that the Syrian army had in Homs a similar problem as the US troops had with Fallujah.) --Dinarsad (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Since when did terrorists attack power lines and water manes? I thought they use suicide bombs. Thats beside the point,

“So Hezbollah started bombing us there with Katyushas. They fired around 21 rockets from near Al-Hermel in Lebanon, which is close to the Syrian border.”

Sopher99 (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Now you're also confused. No wonder. I bet you were not able to retell the story in this NOW Lebanon article. Here is the paragraph:

He said that this tactic was not in fact designed to rob the regime of electricity and water but rather to affect Lebanon: retaliation, he said, against Hezbollah’s provocations. “Hezbollah received information that the Iranians who were captured in Homs had been taken to north Syria,” he told me. “So Hezbollah started bombing us there with Katyushas. They fired around 21 rockets from near Al-Hermel in Lebanon, which is close to the Syrian border.”

Let me summarize: (1) Iranians were captured in Homs and had been taken to north Syria (2) Hezollah received information about that and fired 21 rockets from Al-Hermel in Lebanon to Homs

So, the Syrian certainly relies on Hezbollah to attack Homs? Not plausible.

The next paragraph claims seven Iranian nationals were in FSA custody, "five of them, the rebels insist, are members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) brought in to assist Assad’s Air Force intelligence in sniping".

If that is true, we may assume that FSA has made this public — somehow.

Here is a blog article that links a video that fits to the "IRGC members captures by FSA" story. The blog is quite sceptic. Read through it. You'll find they understand Arabic language and monitor also PressTV. A second source where I found this video is alarabiya.net. Not convincing to me.

Obviously both stories are just rumors, that were spread by intend. --Dinarsad (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Here a new article from today, where the "seven Iranian engineers were also abducted near central Homs city" are mentioned. If it were generally believed at NOW lebanon, that Michael Weiss' portrayal is true, this article hadn't been written as it was. --Dinarsad (talk) 10:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Shortening

The Socio-economic section can be scrapped entirely because the bytes on the page are getting too big. The economics and such are not a good background to the uprising. -I7laseral (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Completely deleting all references to al-Qaeda support is not part of socio-economics, I assume. FunkMonk (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It belongs on International reactions page now. we know now that al nusra is responsible, and Zawahiri's response is just an international response. I deleted S-E section anyway. I7laseral (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

We know that Western sources keep referring to al-Qaeda, which is all that counts. Nusra's participation doesn't negate Qaeda's. FunkMonk (talk) 04:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

The Syrian government describes those who commit these terrorist acts actually not as Al Qaida. In his interview with Rossia-24 President Assad said in May 2012: "Some of them are religious extremists of the al-Qaida movement. And I mean here not only this organization, but also an ideology; I say that they share the same extremist and terrorist ideology with al-Qaida.". Unfortunatly, I have only a German language translation: "Einige von ihnen sind religiöse Extremisten der al-Qaida-Bewegung. Und ich meine hier nicht nur diese Organisation, sondern auch eine Ideologie; ich sage dass sie mit al-Qaida die gleiche extremistische und terroristische Ideologie teilen." --Dinarsad (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I agree with FunkMonk. They are mentioning al-Qaeda all the time which warrants a mention in the main article. EkoGraf (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Material from Intro

I really think the following information should be removed from the intro.

UNICEF reported that over 500 children have been killed,[50][51] Another 400 children have been reportedly arrested and tortured in Syrian prisons.[52][53] Both claims have been contested by the Syrian government.[54] Additionally, over 600 detainees and political prisoners have died under torture.[55] Human Rights Watch accused the government and Shabiha of using civilians as human shields when they advanced on opposition-held areas.[56] Anti-government rebels have been accused of human rights abuses as well, including torture, kidnapping, unlawful detention and execution of civilians, Shabiha, and soldiers. HRW also expressed concern at the kidnapping of Iranian nationals.[14] The UN Commission of Inquiry has also documented abuses of this nature in its February 2012 report, which also includes documentation that indicates rebel forces have been responsible for displacement of civilians.[57]

It should be removed because:

• This is not material that is important to the overall picture of the article
• This material will grow more outdated as events progress
• This page already has enough death statistics that are mentioned in isolation.

XantheTerra (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I am against removing it, we can update stats as time goes by. Rebel actions also important to note. The stats are important because people could think its a war and not a crackdown otherwise. It is important to the overal picture of article, I don't get why you think its not. Deaths statistics are a primary reasoning behind the uprising and its wikipedia article. Sopher99 (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Update stats surely are not suited for an intro. The intro should rather summarize, along the lines of "NGO monitoring organizations report a steady number of human rights violations". The main article below can then be more detailed and possibly also contain update stats. --Dinarsad (talk) 19:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the opposite, some update stats are totaly suitable. For example if the lede says xxx died but then 2 months later we discover that really xxxx died, we update it. Sopher99 (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You are write on the stats angle, they will naturally need to be updated as events progress. However, I just think the paragraph is not needed. It tells how many children have been killed. Given the number of dead mentioned in the section above, I think we can assume they are not immune. Also, given that this is war/revolution/uprising I think it is safe to assume there are human rights abuses. The paragraph just seem unnecessary as part as an introduction.XantheTerra (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Children are specifically targeted intentionally. A major concern for aid groups. Its not like Afganistan/Iraq/Gronzy where children are coincidently killed. Its important to note human shields, as well as rebel kidnap of iranians and "displacement of civilians". I think the lede is fine the way it is and contributes a good picture. The lede is fine and was actually created sentence by sentence by me on consensus from all the others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_uprising_(2011–present)/Archive_5#My_solution_to_the_Lede

Sopher99 (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

main picture

so what happened to the main multi-pictures picture ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.235.240.205 (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright issues. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Could you please advise me of how to resolve this issue. I have provided all the needed copyright information, and it was approved twice. I mentioned the srouces of all the pictures and copyright licenses. --OSFF (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Well looking at the http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Syrian_uprising_multiple_photos.jpg page, it says that it was deleted because one of the photos - File:Syrian_bombing.jpg - was deleted because of copyvio. What I would recommend is closely watching your files and respons when you see that someone nominated your file for deletion. If it was speedy deletion by non-admin user you can bring up that issue on http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard, otherwise you can upload the images, provide copyright informations and ask for further assistance of administrators on noticeboard regarding the copyright issues. If they find none, you should be ok. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Needs to be urgently fixed - the article requires a topic picture.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I worked a lot on the issue with no result. we need some admin help. I have already wasted a lot of time trying to fix this issue much more than the time it took me to put the topic picture together and provide the licence info. I followed the above mentioned link and opened the issue there without any luck. --OSFF (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

something need to be done to the topic picture --OSFF (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello people help is required here--OSFF (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No one will help you here, this is issue for commons. And looking at commons Admin noticeboard, I don´t see anything opened there by you. Look, try to make another main picture from other pictures, open a topic on commons admin noticeboard and paste there all links on those original pictures. Ask if they are ok and not copyvio. If they say yes, no one will delete it. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent removals / additions

Lately, some considerable changes have been made which, to me, seem to contravene earlier consensuses. For one, Hezbollah has been added to the infobox as a belligerent, while there has been a broad consensus not to include alleged belligerents such as Al Qaeda, Iran and Hezbollah. None of the references given for Hezbollah's alleged involvement actually have them as a declared combatant; rather, they're articles on how certain newspapers and the Free Syrian Army allege that Hezbollah partakes in the conflict. Secondly, the 'concessions' section has been removed from the infobox without any apparent reason; we discussed its inclusion before and back then it was decided not to remove it, so what has changed? For both these changes, no (new) consensus has been sought on the Talk page, so I'm curious as to what was the motivation behind them. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

POV pushers are evident on the article by the way the usa is on record in supporting the opposition but is not mentioned in the infobox which is weird. Baboon43 (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been going through a few dozen news articles on the strategic importance of this conflict to the United States, and their role in it. Hopefully that will end up becoming a nice background paragraph at some point. -Darouet (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

They support the opposition politicaly but they are not active participants in the conflict. The infobox exists so it can list those directly involved in the conflict. At this point those are the opposition rebels, the government, and to an extent Iranian special forces and the Hezbollah militia. When there are American boots on the ground only than can we add the US. EkoGraf (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Support from the U.S. and Arab League for the opposition, and from Russia for the Assad regime, is both political and military. I suppose Pentagon spokespeople might argue over whether delivery of night vision goggles, or "coordination" of arms shipments from U.S.-backed Arab League countries, constitutes military support. That's not our job here, as we're not representatives of either party in this conflict. [1][2]. -Darouet (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The infobox is crystal clear, the section in which the warring sides are named is called Parties to the civil conflict. Is the US or Russia in direct involvement to the civil conflict? No. The Iranians and Hezbollah are. This is a clear example of a proxy war between the US and EU on one side and Russia and China on the other, just like the conflicts during the Cold war. But there we didn't include the US or Russia to be part of every war that happened even though they both allegedly provided support to multiple warring sides. Until there is at least confirmation of US military advisors in Syria, like we had in Libya, the US is not part of the conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 16:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It is by no means clear that the Iranians are directly involved in the conflict. Please merge this discussion with that below. -Darouet (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Any Iranian sources for confirmation?

This might be a nitpicking...

According to 3 sources provided ([3], [4] and [5]), Iran confirmed the military aid to the Syrian government. However, if Iran really confirmed this, than it should be expected that Iranian press (e.g. Press TV) would report about it, but such an report is nowhere to be found.

If someone manages to find such an source, it would be good to include it. Video would also be good.

Also, it bothers a bit that out of those 3 sources provided, first one is from 27. May, while other two are from 28. May (which means they might have just used the first one as a source), and this first one is by Ynetnews, which is Israeli newspaper, and Iran and Israel are well known for their mutual hatred, so one might doubt this claim without confirmation from Iranian sources. --93.138.49.138 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You are engaged in WP:FRINGE - the above cited sources are all reliable, and there is no need to do WP:OR over the facts they present.Greyshark09 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with WP:FRINGE; we are responsible for the content we place here. Yes, please verify that the Iranians have confirmed the delivery of military aid to the Syrian government. -Darouet (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It's just aiming for the caution, although it may be overcautious or nitpicking... --93.136.252.145 (talk) 16:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The confirmation came from the top commander of the Iranian Quds force on the official website of the Iranian government, however, as the sources we have provided say themselves, the statement was quickly removed from the website after he was quoted of confirming their presence in Syria. EkoGraf (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

According to one source, an Iranian website uploaded and later removed a quote from an Iranian general in which he said that if the Iranians weren't in Syria, there would be many more civilian casualties. This source was then cited by two other news sources including the Guardian. Is this the justification for writing that the Iranians have armed forces on the ground operating and actually fighting in Syria? Or is there some other? This report would not constitute an admission by the Iranian government that it is engaged in the conflict.-Darouet (talk) 17:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Iran should not be removed from the infobox. There are plenty of sources which all confirm that Iran has in fact deployed troops in Syria and thereby should be considered a combatant. [6][7] --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You need to read the article more carefully. "Had physically and non-physically stopped the rebels from killing many more among the Syrian people." It is on the same level of confirmation as the Qatar confirmation to presence of their troops in Libya (see Libyan Civil War page as an example). As for copying, although that is not the point, first time it was mentioned on one Iranian opposition persi website (I had it opened 3 days ago). Whether additional sources tracked it there, their editors saw it on the website of Iranian press agency or used one another as a source is to us unknown and therefore all we can add to this topic is nothing more than a speculation. Also you removed the contect "based on discussion" which was not closed yes and which continues. Do not do that in the future, unless there is a concensus established among the editors. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mikrobølgeovn for providing two additional sources, which are published after these three cited by our article. And thank you EllsworthSK for your concern; I had read the quote attributed to general Qa'ani prior to writing here.

What 93.136.252.145 is pointing out is that the Iranian government has not confirmed that Iranian forces are fighting against the Syrian opposition on the ground. Now from my own perspective I don't doubt that there are all kinds of Iranian military advisers in Syria (I believe that is consistent with the citation provided above), but we don't know what that really means, even if we accept the "few-hours post" report as good enough for the encyclopedia.

Also according to an Israeli source, wrote RT, "British and Qatari troops [were] directing rebel ammunition deliveries and tactics in the bloody battle for Homs." RT also reported, a day later, a Chinese newspaper's statement that Iran would send 15,000 soldiers to Syria. The Iranian regime actually spoke to RT directly: "as far as I know there is not and will not be any program to dispatch Iranian military troops to Syria... Iran has no troops in the country..."

We should not uncritically believe any of these reports, and for my part I'm no more credulous regarding claims from either side. You don't know from the report above whether Iran has soldiers fighting in Syria, any more than you know if Qatar or the UK have them. So let's be cautious, especially in the infoboxes, where it's hard to explain all this. -Darouet (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, Russia Today reliability is heavily questionable and is applicable only in limited way and with care, in case of this conflict their credibility goes out of the window. Please, read the RS noticeboard archives for more informations. And debkafiles is anything but reliable since it has long history of posting BS (in last year there was, according to them, about dozen or so imminent US attacks on Damascus). And again, putting your own perspective in this matter won´t help much. You have an opinion, but so do others. That is why we use RS to determine the issue. They say, without referencing to some wannabe intelligence website with long history of publishing sensationalistic news and unreliable informations, that head of Quds forces said to Iranian state news agency that Iranian military opposed physically Syrian rebels on Syrian soil. Meanwhile Iranian regime made no attempt to react on that. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

EllsworthSK, are you arguing that ISNA is clearly a reliable source, whereas Debka.com is not? These are both the sources of the articles we've cited above. I don't believe that you will argue this here.

In terms of the subsequent reporting based on two these sources, do you furthermore believe that Ynetnews, Al Arabiya, "News Track India," or RIA Novosti are really more reliable than the "heavily questionable" Russia Today, which you write is "applicable only in limited way [sic] and with care?" I love the Guardian as a source, but as you note yourself, my opinions aren't important here: there are plenty of people in Russia, in Syria and elsewhere who will find RT more reliable. In any event, I know that the Guardian is reporting from ISNA.

You probably know that all these sources have their own political perspectives regarding the Syrian crisis. Listing Iran as a direct participant in this conflict while excluding Russia, members of the Arab League, the EU or the United States, all of which we know are delivering weapons or some kind of military support, just isn't tenable. -Darouet (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Its quite obvious iran is not militarily involved some media outlets have an agenda to possibly enlarge the war, had iranians been involved im sure we would see them in uniform on the ground by the way if iran is involved the usa will not sit back and watch and also the russian war ship is sitting in the docks of damascus which the media will not even mention for obvious reasons. Baboon43 (talk) 08:24, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a tendency amongst certain editors to question the reliability of sources which do not go along with the Western narrative on the Syria crisis. This has led to the bizarre situation in which claims based on pieces of substandard journalism ("according to an unnamed man presenting himself as a senior official...", "based on unverifiable video footage...") are included in the article as long as they're from Western media, while the inclusion of well-sourced articles from Russia Today rarely goes unopposed because the channel's state ownership supposedly makes its reliability questionable. In this case, the claim that Iran is militarily involved in the conflict is based on a statement that allegedly was on ISNA's website but has now miraculously disappeared. No Iranian official has confirmed this supposed involvement since. I'd say this hardly warrants a reference in the article body, let alone an infobox entry.

I'm sticking to my position that only self-confirmed belligerents should be included in the infobox. If we go including belligerents on the basis of loose allegations, we'll soon have a long list of co-belligerents in the infobox. Including Iran en Hezbollah based on the current information opens the door for the inclusion of e.g. France. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to say this. Russia Today is just as reliable as CNN or Al Jazeera. Provided the info they are saying isn't ridiculous or suspect, there isn't any reason to question their reporting. Even if it is suspect, it should be taken on a case by case basis, NOT as a whole organization. On the point of belligerents, I will repeat what I said when people wanted to add Al Qaeda as a belligerent in the Libyan civil war; members of an organization can be involved in a conflict, fight for one side or another, but that does NOT mean that organization is fighting in the conflict. Just because members of Hezbollah are fighting in Syria (a point which I have zero doubt is true) doesn't mean that Hezbollah, as an organization, is fighting in Syria. It would be like a Janitor at Google saying that aliens exist, and then you assume that Google, as a company, believes aliens exist. Until Hezbollah releases a press release or other statement directly confirming their involvement, they should not be added to the belligerents list. Same goes for Iran. And if the statement can no longer be found on the internet, THAT is suspect, because any press release or statement of that magnitude would still be around if it was made at all. Jeancey (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem of RT isn´t really as much state ownership, but their bias in reporting when it comes to Russia or Russian interest. Anyway, I think we can remove the Iran part until some other or stronger confirmation comes out but it won´t hurt mentioning it in the article. Also we should remove Hezbollah on the same basis and Fatah al-Islam. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Dekba is not reliable. I believe if you look at the RS board you would find repeated complaints on Al Dekba. Russia today same thing. Russia today is owned and influenced directly by the Kremlin. Not only that, but many RS sources, even as far as the NY times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/arts/television/julian-assange-starts-talk-show-on-russian-tv.html ), criticize russia today as a propaganda channel.

Iran is a self-confirmed belligerent, but since the information was removed from the iranian website, we now have doubt. The question is hand is how strong the doubt is. Sopher99 (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You telling me CNN and New York times are not influenced by the view of their own government? Please lets not kid ourselves here. In any case, as far as I know, US media has also been criticized to be spreading US propaganda, and not just by Russia today. Why are we than removing Russia today references and not US media references? Also, the New York times isn't really the best source to cite accusations of russia today being a propaganda channel since its been criticized by many American experts themselves that the Times is more radical and biased in their views than most other US media outlets. In any case, please, per Wikipedia guidelines we need to keep a neutral position and present views of both sides. And for that we use all sources. Wikipedia has not imposed a rule declaring Russia today to be on its list of non-reliable sources that can not be used, until that happens, we regard it as a reliable source, despite what our personal opinions on the matter are. EkoGraf (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand me - CNN and New york times are occasionally inspired by the government's point. Russia today is influenced as in commanded by the Russian government. The only American media commanded by the US government is voice of America, as it is only legal in America to have international state tv (television which does not air in America). National State television (state tv which airs in America) is forbidden by the constitution via Congressional Amendments. Sopher99 (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

You do know that senatorial and congressional lobbyists have a large stake and a lot of influence in US media? But never mind. EkoGraf (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Continuity of the argument

On the contrary, it was. See Wikipedia:Potentially_unreliable_sources#News_media EllsworthSK (talk) 16:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly stated here, and as others have written as well, most of the media sources we're discussing are backing the foreign policy objectives of the governments that host them. What, does anybody believe it a coincidence that CNN or the New York Times are aligned with the Obama Administration regarding Syria? Or that the RT is aligned with Putin? This isn't a recent phenomenon: if you go back and read newspapers from WWI you'll see that the major papers backed the war aims of each nation hosting them, whether they were "free" or not.

RT is not just aligned with Putin. Its controlled by the Putin Administration. Its State Tv.

And by the way - any news source which does not align themselves with the alqaeda-hired-by-foreign countries claim is considered anti Syrian government by the Syrian government Sopher99 (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sopher99, this is text from the NYTimes article you posted above to demonstrate that the NYTimes, a reliable news source, doesn't consider the RT to be reliable:

"In a preshow promotional interview with an RT reporter, Mr. Assange said he chose that network because it has greater penetration in the United States than Al Jazeera and because no other networks would have him. He isn’t looking forward to the reviews of his show. He predicted that The Times, among others, would dismiss him as 'an enemy combatant and traitor getting into bed with the Kremlin.' Of course, practically speaking, Mr. Assange is in bed with the Kremlin, but on Tuesday’s show he didn’t put out."

I'm sorry, you may consider that great or objective journalism, but I find it worse than bad taste. We, here, can do much better than this. I think we are collectively able to have, as editors, a far more neutral perspective than these papers, in part because Wikipedia is an international project. -Darouet (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

"Moscow is at odds with Washington over Syria, and RT accordingly colors its reports from Damascus with sharp digs at the West and American support of opposition fighters that RT describes as “terrorists.” Unlike RT, Mr. Assange supports the opposition forces in Syria. He took Mr. Nasrallah to task for supporting every Arab Spring uprising except the one against Syria and asked why he wasn’t doing more to stop the bloodshed. (Mr. Assange mentioned among the many dead “a journalist I had dinner with a year ago, Marie Colvin,” referring to the Sunday Times of London correspondent who was killed in Homs in February.)" Sopher99 (talk) 20:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but that's a two-way street. From the NYT, in an article titled The Enablers: "China, Russia and India see themselves as global leaders. So why have they been enabling two dangerous regimes, Syria and Iran, to continue on destructive paths? ... It’s time for Russia, China and India (which desperately wants a Security Council seat) to meet the test of leadership. That means all three need to work to find ways to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions. For Russia and China, it means standing against Mr. Assad’s siege on his people.[8]" -Darouet (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I read the New York Times every day, but they aren't necessarily known for their neutrality, and there are a few infamous cases in particular ([9], [10], [11]). I'm not the only person who remembers these incidents. Also, EllsworthSK, I'm not sure if you saw this warning at the top of the essay you linked: "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion. Essays are not Wikipedia policies." -Darouet (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

It says potentially not exclusivly. Also, I see Xinhua on that list but it isn't explained why it is considered potentially unreliable. I'm seeing the two big news broadcasters of the same two countries that are supporting the Syrian government on the list, what a coincidence. In any case, doesn't matter, like I said above, it is well known US media is influenced by senatorial and congressional lobbyists and by US foreign policy, they don't have to be directly commanded by the US government when you got the politicians. They follow what the White house says. Simple as that. EkoGraf (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Xinhua is Chinese Communist Party press agency, it is Chinese variation of Soviet-time Pravda. Also I see that you want to draw a line between what is happening in Syria and the presence of RT and Xinhua on the link, however if you check history you´ll see that they are there for years and were put there by an administrator. Also claiming that users know much better what is going on than WP:RS may be true, but it blows hole so big into wikipedia guidelines that if we accept it as a norm we can say goodbye to Wikipedia. Hence WP:V. Bottom line, we have administrator who identified Russia Today as unreliable source, yet we have no such thing with New York Time which is considered to be one of the most reliable source on the planet with more than 1,000 editors working in their foreign section, not controlled by state, not subject to either auto-censorship or censorship. Pulling few articles which quoted unnamed intelligence officials (which were partially wrong as history showed) from hundreds of thousands articles New York Times published over the decade cannot be qualified even as ridiculous. Now, I do not know if I am the only one who remembers it but this discussion had nothing to do with something that belongs to WP:RSN where, by all means, we can continue with this discussion. We were discussing whether to include or not Iran in the article/infobox. Option which I presented was to remove the Iran till other sources come up with something else, but put the same merit on everything else and together with it remove both Hezbollah and Fatah al-Islam. Does anyone agree with it or not? EllsworthSK (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave it to others to decide whether Fatah al-Islam has confirmed its participation in the military conflict in Syria (I don't know), but it's clear at this time that Iran hasn't.

As far as the reliability of sources is concerned, and in this context, I don't find the New York Times more reliable than Russia Today, and EllsworthSK has failed to establish that Wikipedia does either. -Darouet (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should put in a section for international backers? This would allow us to place Russia and Iran in that category for the government, and the Unites States, EU (arguably) and Arab League in that category for the opposition? Just a suggestion. -Darouet (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Nah, we already have a foreign involvement section, a Sup for Gov section, and a Sup for Opp section. Thats more than enough already. Sopher99 (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to compare the independence and reputation of US media and that of Russian media. If you don’t believe me then take a look at what happened today: Protestor Jailed for Spitting on Putin Portrait. This would never happen in the US. Russia is a corrupt country (ranked 143rd in the world on the Corruption Perceptions Index, whereas the US is ranked 24th)… Tradedia (talk) 00:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken a few months back US police arrested 300 Wall Street protesters, [12] also I know over the years many protesters in the US were arrested for burning the US flag (which is the equivelent of a protester spitting on Putins portrait in Russia) and per that Index you showed the US may not be in the red on the corruption level, but its not also in the green. Its in the yellow. ;) And don't get me started on the rendition thing and the wiretapping. So please don't talk to me by saying US politicians are not corrupt. Anyway this is off-topic. We were talking about Iranian and Hezbollah presence in Lebanon. But at this point I don't care anymore really. EkoGraf (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Good Proof

this link here CNN quotes an Iran minister saying, "before our presence in Syria, too many people were killed by the opposition but with the physical and nonphysical presence of the Islamic republic, big massacres in Syria were prevented." This was said by Ismail Ghani, commander of the Revolutionary Guards, and Deputy Commander of the Quds Force. Is this not good proof Iran is in Syria? If it isn't then what is? Because apparently the CIA's intelligence findings are not reliable. Jacob102699 (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Jacob102699 this has already been reviewed above. -Darouet (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that an infobox is a place to summarize the significant elements of a conflict. The 30 infiltrators of Fatah al-Islam do not constitute a significant “Party to the civil conflict”. I mean we are talking about a country of 22 million people. Therefore, I think Fatah al-Islam should be kept off the infobox. It is already described in the “Foreign involvement” section.

On the other hand, I think that the military support of Iran is significant. Iran is a country of 80 million and has a lot at stake in Syria. Ismail Ghani had a slip up and admitted what we all knew all along: “physical … presence of the Islamic republic.” They then realize that he was supposed to keep their presence secret, but it was too late. I can imagine a high ranking official reading what Ghani said and being like: “Oh damn, this idiot was not supposed to say we have troops in Syria… It’s supposed to be a secret!” Then, he’s like: “Quick, let’s remove this text from the website… hopefully no one would have noticed…” Hahaha… yeah right… the news got out and it is now in CNN and other media outlet. So yes, Ismail Ghani, commander of the Revolutionary Guards, and Deputy Commander of the Quds Force did admit that Iran had troops on the ground in Syria. When you slip up and tell a secret, it is too late afterwards to take it back. It is barely a secret anyway… Everyone and his grandma know that Iran/Hezbollah are on the ground in Syria. Therefore, I think Iran/Hezbollah should be kept in the infobox. Tradedia (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. It is just as probable that someone from Ynetnews simply made this up. There is no way to confirm (or refute) this alleged Iranian self-confirmation. --93.139.151.226 (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It has not. And it not just Ynetnews. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Iran and Hezbollah belong in the infobox, and they have for a long time. This is simply the latest in a long list of sources stating they have an armed presence in Syria. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Title Change

I will be making the title change to meet wikipedia title requirment so the new title will be 2011-2012 syrian uprising if the uprising continues to 2013 then somebody will have to move the title to 2011-2013 syrian uprising. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

We had actually determined beforehand through consensus on the talk page that 2011-present was the best format. Please see the archives. Sopher99 (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Besides of which, what requirements? You did not provide a link to a guideline. Sopher99 (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Title

"2011-2012"? This suggests the conflict has ended. It hasn't. Therefore the name should be changed. What is this? Shouldn't it be changed to Syrian Civil War or something (just a suggestion, but calling it 2011-2012 is definitely wrong)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.4.0 (talk) 16:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

...No? How does it suggest that at all? -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think he/she means that something such as Syrian uprising (2011–present) would be more suitable, cf. War in Afghanistan (2001–present). - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Was thinking the same thing today. EkoGraf (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Do we need years at all? i.e.: "Syrian Uprising" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.16.30 (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, having the years in the title is very pointless. I don't even know why/who put it there in the first place. I remember it being just "Syrian uprising".72.53.153.82 (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

There were so many Syrian uprisings over the history, that putting years is something crucial to define the event.Greyshark09 (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it is weird to have the year in the title

So the consensus is that it should be changed... But it isn't being changed...? Also to Kudzu1, of course it suggests it has ended or at least that it will end soon. The conflict has every potential to go on past 2012.

"Date 15 March 2011 – ongoing" It doesn't say 2012. 2011-2012 sounds wrong and is misleading. It makes assumptions. Totally unencyclopaedic.

So how do I edit wikipedia then?

I agree with Greyshark09. MohammedBinAbdullah (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

You can't just move a discussion from 2 months ago to the forefront like this MohammedBinAbdullah and continue it like it never ended. The discussion ended 2 months ago and consensus was to put 2011-present in the title. If you want to change the name than you need to open a new discussion section, not trying to reopen a closed one. EkoGraf (talk) 18:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War title

I have the reasons for calling it civil war:

1. It's a movement led by the opposition 2. The movement had goal the restignation of Bashar al-Assad 3. It haves civil involvement but with the help of Syrian National Council's forces 4. It's more that a civil uprising for the human rights, it's a civil war with military intervention of government-in-exile's forces (Free Syrian Army, Syrian Liberation Army,etc...) 5. More sources says that is a civil war

We can change his name in Syrian Civil War? --Luis Molnar (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

It isn't called civil war by most sources. End of story. FunkMonk (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

To elaborate, it doesn't matter how convincingly you can prove it's a civil war through the definition of a civil war, doing so counts as Original Research. Until reliable sources states that it is a civil war (and not just saying that it is moving towards it) we cannot change the article name. Jeancey (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Syrian uprising (2011–present) → Syrian Civil War –

• • • The count currently stands at 19 supports compared to 9 opposes. Wikipedia's neither a poll or a democracy, but so far the ratio is 2-1 in favor of changing the article's name, which I believe qualify's as consensus. (A sharp change compared to 14-15 two months ago). I7laseral (talk)

Nobody is using the word uprising anymore. The term civil war is more and more used and as well more accurate. Uprising is a joke of a name. Evidence: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=syria+civil+war&fr=sfp&fr2=&iscqry=

• Sorry, but your evidence only shows that the term "civil war" is commonly used, not that "uprising" is out of use yet. So please provide more convincing evidence or accept the facts. Thanks. --Bassmachine89 (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

But is uprising out of use yet? We should check if that is still be used as well. Sopher99 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - though previously i had opposed such a move, the collapse of the Kofi Annan peace plan and surging violence, as well as the shift in COMMONNAME referation by sources to the conflict as a "civil war" justify the rename of the article.Greyshark09 (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Has all the criteria of a civil war, sources constantly saying that this is war, borderline civil war. Enough sources say that this is a civil war falsely called a ceasefire. Sopher99 (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Per others. EkoGraf (talk) 22:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Difficult decision. Most of the sources I've seen say that Syria almost meets the threshold for a civil war. But when you look at what's happening, it seems as if the hostilities are only increasing in numbers on both sides. In my eyes, it is now a de facto civil war. Master&Expert (Talk) 22:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support - With the UN now calling it a civil war, the few outlets still saying it 'could become a civil war' will switch over within days -- Smurfy 20:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, altogether premature. Iraq had a much longer and bloodier insurgency, but the term "civil war" was not used to describe it in mainstream media sources. Generally, the term "civil war" tends to be used when both sides semi-permanently hold and govern distinct territories (US civil war 1860s, Spanish civil war 1930s) albeit with shifting front lines; it does not tend to be used when one side is a guerrilla or insurgency movement that does not try to permanently hold territory (i.e., insurgents slip away and melt into the general population whenever central government troops show up in force in any one particular location), and there are no "front lines". — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually Aufrette, you are a bit wrong. What happened in Iraq was called in the mainstream media sources a civil war. And we even have an article, see Civil war in Iraq. Also, on the question of holding territory. Most sources at the moment state that the FSA is holding under its control the entire northern part of Idlib province and some parts of the central Hama and Homs provinces. So there actually are frontlines and no-mans lands in Syria at the moment. EkoGraf (talk) 01:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Per arguments made by Greyshark, Sopher, and EkoGraf. I7laseral (talk) 04:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose the previous state didn't change, there is "worries" of a civil war, but no one use the term "Civil war" itself yet, it is still "uprising", "crisis", "protests" etc. Besides, there is still two independent types of movements in Syria; peaceful and military, and even if the conflict is taking increasingly a sectarian scope, it didn't become an obvious sectarian war at all. Until this changes, it is still very early to call it a "Civil war". By the way, taking a fast look at BBC, France24, Reuters and Al-jazzera, I don't see anyone calling it a civil war, it doesn't seems really a notable term yet as said above --aad_Dira (talk) 16:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC).
• Oppose Uprising remains a more accurate depiction of what's happening. It's not a war between two organizations within the country, but rather an uprising of the citizens against the government. --mjlissner (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support per others. Jacob102699 (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, sources in general are not calling it a civil war.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - a civil war is when the civil population of a nation fightes along ethnic/racial/religious lines; however in Syria people are fighting against government led, organized and equipped security forces, who have been ordered to suppress all opposition. It will be a civil war when whole units of the military change sides and civilians on a large scale begin to fight against each other. As of now it is overwhelmingly civilians vs. government forces - hence uprising is the appropriate term. Syria is definitely heading to a civil war, but it is not there yet! We can not glass-bowl here what events the future brings! Please also note the the British Foreign Secretary defined the situation is Syria today as "We're on the edge of that kind of sectarian murder on a large scale" - therefore: wait and see! (read also: Sign of growing sectarian strife and/or Can Syria avoid sliding into 'catastrophic civil war'?) noclador (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Civilians still count as civil war: Algerian civil war, russian civil war, Costa rica civil war, Colombian civil war, ect. Besides you do realize the FSA is almost all military defectors? I7laseral (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Do the sources call it a civil war? If you listen closely all politicians refer to it something that might/will/could become a civil war and so does the press! Besides - do you understand the difference between "defectors" and "whole units of the military"?? noclador (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support, The only reason why sources are not calling this a civil war is because no media taken the lede in doing so. All the media just copycat's each other. I guarantee that after 1-2 weeks of wikipedia changing the name to civil war, all other media will follow. Zenithfel (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

  Your reasoning is reversed here, see WP:NOT and WP:OR. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promoting any particular terminology or naming scheme. We generally look to secondary sources like news media for usage guidance, not vice versa. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

What I am saying is that we should take the media issue down a notch, and the facts issue up a notch. Zenithfel (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?ID=273364&R=R1&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter --93.137.197.52 (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support per others, plus arguments I used in three other discussions regarding this proposed move. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

  A link or diff or summary would be helpful here. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

  [13] [14] and there was one other back in December 2011. Regardless, my arguments are stated. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support Per other arguments. Goltak (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Support The rebels are armed. CNN is saying that the battle for the two largest cities of Syria has begun. Government troops are being ambushed. Months ago, I believed that this was a civil war. Now, it's even more obvious. EDIT: On to the latest news, there's more reason to support. "UN peacekeeping chief says government has lost "large chunks of territory" as witnesses describe heavy shelling in Homs." --Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support More reliable sources are referring this to as a civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ite muslims. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support per others' arguments. 48Lugur (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support This is a war Drlf (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Truth by consensus is not enough in itself to warrant a move and/or rename of the article in question. Whilst by simple definition the events may constitute as a civil war (OED: Civil war, n. a war between citizens of the same country), in reality and in practise the events that constitute a civil war are much more complex than simple argumentum ad populum, circular definition, and in itself is a wicked problem. The parameters of the current conflict do not constitute a civil war under international law under the Geneva Conventions - Fourth Geneva Convention, customary international law or the United Nations Charter a.39 (per the general rules of interpretation: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, ratified by the Syrian Arab Republic), of which all members are assigned, per the Syrian Arab Republic being member to the United Nations.--^D Namtar 00:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus matters alot on wikipedia and we should not go with dic def opinions rather we should go with the sources found. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, Wikipedia is not an opinion peace based upon Opinion Journalism. As in the case of your "New Reliable Sources", (of which I chuckled at the fact you included a Daily Mail article amongst them - Especially when in the right hand bar, there is a William Hague article regarding Syria as not yet reached the ultimatum). If you wish to ignore the VCLT I aforementioned as part of International Law for Opinion Journalism then be my guest, but if you think that is how Wikipedia solely operates then you are sadly mistaken. Consensus is an important part of Wikipedia, but even more so is neutrality, Wikipedia does not take sides. Consensus is not black and white, even within Wikipedia policy, which is why this discussion is taking place to resolve this impasse. Your statement is nothing more than the obvious, as to why this discussion is in function in the first place, and furthermore you clearly did not read my original statement as I argued against the use of the dictionary definition, not for it, rather I utilized International Law regarding the issue, not opinion pieces. Any further opinion disputes and/or canvassing in response to this can be made on my talk page, this is not the place to do so. --^D Namtar 00:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fourth Geneva Convention does not define what civil war is and what is not. Read sources you like to use again. And with that article 39 you have got to be kidding. As for sources, little googling can make everyone life easier. [15] [16] (remove the slash) [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] And these sources are just recent. Here are few sources from last year which call it as such [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The selective reading of users here is astounding. No, it does not, which is why I elaborated upon the points in relation to the VCLT as aforementioned. Again (as aforementioned), if you or other uses wish to canvas (especially with freelance Opinion Journalism of the same editorial tripe as outlined in my previous statement), do so on my Talk Page. Per Wikipedia guidelines this is not the place to do so, nor the place to argue semantics, rhetoric, nor the social, political, or cultural definition of a non-neutral term.--^D Namtar 17:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support per others' arguments.DVoit 00:26, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - Just like the last time we had this discussion, authoritative sources are in fact NOT calling this a civil war. Just yesterday, British foreign minister William Hague warned that Syria "is on the edge of civil war",^[37] UN chief Ban Ki-Moon has said that there is an "imminent and real threat" of civil war^[38] and Kofi Annan warned that "if things do not change, the future is likely to be one of (...) civil war".^[39] Note how none of them are saying that it is currently a civil war! - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• comment - We can change the article name to civil war, and then in the opening sentence say the conflict is an uprising and de facto civil war, alerting readers that common media may or may not be calling it a civil war. I7laseral (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - The common name by reliable sources is not the Syrian civil war. Wikipedia policy is to follow the news not lead the news in naming events. Also, those wishing to change the name have the burden of proof to show that common reliable sources such as the nytimes, wall street journal, washington post, guardian, bbc, cnn, etc. are calling the event now the Syrian civil war, so far a set of solid references for naming it the Syrian civil war has not been presented. Guest2625 (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Im not finding much for "Syrian uprising" that is recent. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support, for God knows how many time. This has seriously become a joke; the vast majority of people who have commented here have wanted to rename this, a number which has only increased since the collapse of the UN peace plan. The majority of news sources have referred to this as a civil war, it is a civil war by all definitions. This is by far the most retarded debate over a name that I have ever seen on Wikipedia, and it is being continued by a select few people who were opposed to it in the beginning and continue to comment and argue with the people who do support it simply because THEIR chosen source has never referred to it as such or they're holding out for some elusive common name which for political reasons is never going to occur in the lifetime of the conflict. Pull your heads out of your asses, people. --71.87.213.78 (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• MAJOR NEWS FLASH The head of UN peacekeeping says Syria is now in a state of civil war. Source here [40]. EkoGraf (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support the UN defines it a civil war according to the latest news--1j1z2 (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support as per UN Peacekeeper comments. Reubot (talk) 19:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support It is a civil war according to the UN. --Ahmetyal (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support You can't get much more official than the United Nations. It most definitely should be changed ASAP. --Warioman86 (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

New reliable sources calling this a "civil war"

Note: All sources are within 2 days old

• (MSNBC)
• (Dailymail)
• (The Hindu

Other than those alot of material I found is from June 8 and repeats the same words "Warns of a civil war" "Civil war looming" and "Worries of a civil war" with a few but not many new sources saying the same thing. So we editors on wikipedia can either wait a few days, if the violence continues than more sources might be calling it a Civil war ot call it a civil war based on newer sources comming out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It is different when you hunt for the word "Civil war" itself in any place it is mentioned in, and when the civil war is really the dominant term. All large news agencies like Rueters, BBC, France24, RT and Al-Jazeera still don't use the term "civil war". It is not important if it was used occasionally once, or twice, or even more, but when you open a random article about Syria in any news agency, what is the possibility to find someone calling it "civil war"? I have opened random article in each of the news agencies I just mentioned, and didn't found the word "Civil war" at all, unless quoting the speech of someone "worried" that Syria is near the civil war. I don't understand why the people here are so hurried about it, let everything take its time --aad_Dira (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC).

There were numerous requests to change the name into civil war (hopefully, this will be the last one), and there were always some excuses to oppose the renaming, despite the fact that this conflict is obviously a civil war. Well, now even UN calls it civil war, so this should finally be enough do this name change which was supposed to be done a long time ago, but it's ok, this will probably be solved now. --93.139.62.105 (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Here you have it

UN peacekeeping chief says that starting today Syria is at full civil war. I don't think you can get a more potent RS than the very guy whose job is to determine the situation in every country.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/06/201261212572120933.html I7laseral (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep. If only people weren't too ignorant to change it. This is a war. They are slaughtering children. OWS (which I oppose heavily, I am just using it as an example) is an uprising. This is a war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drlf (talk • contribs) 19:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Syrian rebels

Heres an article that questions the moral legitimacy of the rebels. Does anybody have ideas as to how to incorporate this into the article? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9321068/Channel-4-journalist-Alex-Thomson-says-Syria-rebels-led-me-into-death-trap.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

We already have Un rights reports that the former assad soldiers are not perfect. This article is not defending anyone's moral legitimacy or not. Sopher99 (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

-There you go again Sopher, "former assad (sic) soldiers." Your writing is intertwined with propaganda that leads me to question your motives in editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The Free Syrian army is mostly made up of former Assad soldiers. Its a fact. Logically, I would expect the former Assad soldiers to have a similar mentality as they did serving under Assad.Sopher99 (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This IP address if you look at the contributions, is an obvious vandal. Could likely be ChronicalUsual. Jacob102699 (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)