Talk:Syrian civil war

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)

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)

Suliman: 'Al Jazeera plays the piper, but Qatar calls the tune'

Why this topic was deleted? It has straight relation to the article and doesn't break any rules!

"The long-time Berlin correspondent for Al Jazeera, Aktham Suliman, recently resigned from his post. The journalist tells DW that the Qatari government is exercising undue influence on Al Jazeera's reporting."

Read here the whole interview: http://www.dw.de/suliman-al-jazeera-plays-the-piper-but-qatar-calls-the-tune/a-16477490

Another citation: "In Syria, too, society is divided. You have the pro-Assad people, and those who are against him. However, when you make one side out to be mass murderers and turn the others into saints you're fueling the conflict, not presenting the situation in an appropriate and balanced way. There are murders, injustices and good things on both sides. But you don't see that on Al Jazeera. My problem is and was: When I see Al Jazeera's Syrian coverage, I don't really understand what's going on there. And that's the first thing I expect from journalism."

Taking this into account, I offer do NOT treat Al Jazeera as reliable source anymore (regarding Syrian crisis) and delete it from external links. 95.135.26.136 (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC) :Striked IP sock of Deonis_2012. [1] Sopher99 (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha, and why it's strikethrough? :) Will any explanations be written? Or just censorship? 95.135.26.136 (talk) 16:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC) :Striked IP sock of Deonis_2012. [2] Sopher99 (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What is going on here? Why is one side being censored? The neutrality of this article is outrageous. Sopher, don't push your political agenda on this article. Who is paying you? Hmm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There might be only one explanation which Sopher99 gave earlier: "Al Jazeera English is perfect!" No-no, don't think that somebodies' opinion influence on this article! This is not so! Remember - there are no opinions on Wiki! :)46.201.207.98 (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, guys, who may edit this article - please, delete Al Jazeera from external links as it seems not to be reliable source in this question (according to their own journalists). 46.201.207.98 (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably the reason of striking this topic is that Deutsche Welle is not reliable source? Does it also support Al Assad? 46.201.207.98 (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The status quo here is that anything supporting Assad is not a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Your only half right. Anything source which "supports" Assad is not a reliable source, any more than a site which "supports" rebels. We don't use sources to put in a point, we use sources to back up reports and news about events .Sopher99 (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Man, this topic was striked definitely not because of non-reliable link. So what was the reason? That'd be nice to know. 46.201.207.98 (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It was striked due to consistent sock puppetry by an ip of Deonis_2012, of which your Ip is a candidtate too. Sopher99 (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have taken this talk to the [[3]] and it is clear that Al Jazeera is rubber stamp for the Qatari royal family. Dafranca (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That noticeboard did not come to any conclusion. Al jazeera is not controlled by the Qatari Royal family, just invested by it. Its not State Television Sopher99 (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think censorship is being practiced here. I think it's an abuse of Wikipedia. The struck words of the editor seem like fair comment and a good contribution (where all perspectives should be heard). Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how "fair" comment by a blocked user is. The user is blocked. His or her right to contribute to Wikipedia has been duly revoked. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The points still stand, the user is irrelevant. He didn't make up those articles. FunkMonk (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Lack of Information On Syrian Army activity

The article is full of rebel this, rebel that; there is little information on the activities of the syrian army.Monticores (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The Syrian army doesn't contact media to tell them their operations. The FSA have the Syrian Observatory for Human rights and the Local Coordination Committees, not to mention their own spokepersons and many regular FSA soldiers who contact media to blab about their advancements. Basicly, the Free Syrian Army and opposition activists are constantly revealing info about their military situations non-stop, while for the Syrian army is on strict orders not to contact media. There is no goverment I know of that allows regular soldiers and civilians to freely go ahead and talk to media about their military positions or military plans. Sopher99 (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The closest you get is state tv reports about Syrian army operations, but those are not reliable sources unless a RS reports on it. Furthermore the Syrian army has not had a single major victory in 6 months, while the rebels have slow but existent victories. Sopher99 (talk) 19:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

6 months? Hmmmm, they won the Battle of Damascus in July, recaptured several districts in Homs city, stalled the rebels in Aleppo city and the Damascus countryside to the point of a stalemate, and halted for the most part the rebels attempted advance into Hama province. Wouldn't say they were without some success. EkoGraf (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

My bad. If January is month 1 (ie month 13) then 13 - 7 (The month of July) = 6 months. But since the rebel attack on Damascus occured in mid jully, and its January 12th now, I was off by atleast 2 weeks. Stalemates are not victories. World War 1, World War 2, Vietnam war, and most recently the Libyan civil war were spent at least half of their time period in stalemates. In the end one side still lost in each case. Sopher99 (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"The Syrian army doesn't contact media to tell them their operations." Or perhaps the western media doens't care? If you want to know what the army is doing, check SANA. Whoops, we only slavishly follow al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya (or western "news" derived from them), I forgot. FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah man, Jazeera totally never mentions anything from SANA. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Definitely not. No. Not once. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Count how many times we use Al jazeera and Al Arabiya as sources in this article. Then compare it to the number of sources we use in general. Sopher99 (talk) 02:47, 13 January 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. [9] 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." [10]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."[11] 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)

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 [are] 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)

U.S. Ambassador stated he can now hear artillery fire from the presidential offices

http://www.ksbw.com/news/U-S-ambassador-Regime-insiders-flee-Syria/-/1852/18268030/-/i7h26p/-/index.html - while not necessarily signalling the "end" of Assad, this isn't good news for the current regime.HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Assad is well known to reside far away from his presidential office, for security reasons. This news doesn't mean too much. --Emesik (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You entirely missed the point, but that's water under the bridge now. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Israel joins

So Israel has now killed several Syrian soldiers and workers. That makes Israel a belligerent, no? Surely, if Iran and Hezbollah are listed though the exact nature of their actions is unclear, Israel should be too, as we know exactly who they've killed and how many. FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's just one strike. Not enough action to be considered a belligerent.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ehm, they've made several attacks just today, one on a Syrian army convoy, and another on a research facility. Plus the Golan attack a while back.[12] Expect it to continue. They've already killed half as many pro-regime Syrians as the Kurds have, yet the Kurds are listed among the "rebels". As for Sopher's argument that they're not "part of the civil war", see the infobox of Lebanese Civil War. FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Iran sent troops to Syria. Israel just launched a few strikes due to minor border clashes Hezbollah, events mostly unrelated to the core aspects of the civil war.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And what did they do? And what is this "fact" based on? FunkMonk (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight in its highest degree. One strike doesn't do anything. Turkey fired mortars into Syria and killed 12 troops but it didn't escalate beyond that. So we don't put Turkey as a belligerent. Iran has thousands of troops on the ground for over a year, about 500 of which died, and 48 of which were captured at one point. Big difference. Sopher99 (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet again they've made at least three strikes so far. And again, the Iran stuff is mere rumours. FunkMonk (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Iran stuff is not "mere rumors". Its confirmed by everyone but the "axis of resistance" members themselves. And so what about "Three" . Turkey did over 5. Doesn't mean Turkey is a belligerent. Syrian troops shot a killed a Jordanian soldier on the border three months ago, doesn't mean we put Jordan in. Sopher99 (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

based on "eyewitnesses" in Beirut and other heavily biased characters. And why am I not surprised the both of you show up at the same time? When are Lhaseral and Sayerselle joining the party? And yes, Turkey is a belligerent too. They're doing more than any other outside faction. FunkMonk (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

omg wow ppl participating in topic areas theyre interested in?????? watchlisting pages????? omg who even does that????? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

One thing is "joining a discussion". Another is tag team reverting.[13] The "third row" incident effectively demonstrated this. FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I was actually just about to add the LCC reported death toll to the timeline, and before doing so I always check botht the timeline's and the Syrian civil war's page history, to make sure its not being sabotaged. Hezbollah, iranians, al nusra, libyans and sadrs armies are the top 5 outside forces in Syria. Sopher99 (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

According to this evening's news, Israel was taking pre-emptive action to keep armaments from getting into the hands of their enemies in Lebanon and Palestine. There was no indicationg that they're interested in joining the war against Assad. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Israel really has no affinity with either side in the conflict—Assad is an old (though largely rhetorical) foe, while the presence of groups like Nusra makes the opposition repulsive. The rebels—even the secular ones—are hardly pro-Zionist either. During the border incidents in the Golan, both sides tried to frame Israel's responses as being in support of the other. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Israel would never attack the insurgents. They're betting on the insurgents to weaken the Syrian army, so of course they have a stake in this. They're cosy with Mursi, so repulsive ideology is not a problem, as long as the extremists are obedient. FunkMonk (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Mubarak was a lame, toothless lapdog, and they're desperate to ensure that Egypt doesn't become a hostile neighbour again. Bashar talk(ed/s) a tough talk, but he was actually in some hush-hush talks with Israel about returning the illegally occupied parts of Quneitra to Syria prior to this war. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The opposition has now blasted Assad & friends for not defending/immediately retaliating. Of course, retaliation is already on the minds of those in Damascus. Though they may have torn the country to shreds, both sides do seem to agree on matters concerning Israel. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Rebels did help Israel by attacking and destroying some of Syria's air defense system.Monticores (talk) 01:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Not for the purpose of helping Israel. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"A staunch ally of Damascus, Hezbollah fought a month-long war with Israel in the summer of 2006 - " - maybe this info belongs as a postscript bit to the 2006 Lebanon war article? Sayerslle (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

So.. do we add Israel to the rebel column? Separated, of course, and with a clarification ("limited involvement" or "air strikes"). As accurate as that may be in terms of depicting the conflict, I can imagine folks inclined towards the SNC would not like it one bit. -- Director (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

If at all, it would need to be made clear that the attacks were not done in support of the rebels, who have already criticised the government for not quickly retaliating. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That's kind of speculative. Common sense would dictate that the SNC would certainly condemn Israel's intervention, out of necessity, regardless of whether Isreal acted in their support or not (Arabs and Israelis being on such great terms and all). Even if the rebels were not, in addition, a mostly Islamist faction. What else can they possibly say?

In fact, that statement just looks like plain (war) propaganda. Neither the rebels nor the government are in any kind of position to actually retaliate against Israel. Even were it not in a civil war, Syria's ability to "retaliate" against Israel would be highly questionable. As things are, the very idea is laughable, and would constitute military and political suicide.

The statement is just a clever propaganda twist ("never mind Israel helping us, see how Assad is powerless against the Jews!"). All it shows is that the rebels are publicly "opposed" to Israel's actions, i.e. it shows they're not allies - and that's what the dividing line is there for. The statement has no bearing on the question of whether or not they really are enjoying some support from the Israelis (who happen to be bombing their enemies..).

In my own personal opinion, even without the strikes, its pretty obvious whom Israel/NATO/US would like to see the victor. -- Director (talk) 03:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Its not as simple as that. Netanyahu doesn't care about whether assad stays or goes, and is instead scared of jihadists. Ehud Barak (defense minister) though has stated he would like to see foreign intervention in Syria. Obama and Clinton repeatedly say intervention is last resort and instead repeatedly "try to convince" Russia out of their positions. However neither Obama or Clinton are Anti-Assad die hards, and chuck hagel who may become defense secratary, is certainly the most reserved on the Syrian issue. Cameron and Erdogan explicitly hate Assad, and Hollande would be sending troops strait into Syria to support the rebels had he been in Obama's position. Sopher99 (talk) 03:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Assad liked to play the tough guy when it came to Israel, but it's abundantly clear that he was very much the "bitch" in that relationship—and a stable and predictable bitch at that. He had even been negotiating with Netanyahu in 2010 to work on the Golan situation prior to the Arab Spring. Syrian Druze in occupied Quneitra had been allowed to conduct business across the border thanks to mutual agreements between the two "foes".

Yes, it's propaganda—but so what? Assad's no stranger to that game himself, particularly when it comes to Israel.

The strikes weren't really in support of any rebel actions. Far as I know, the western suburbs of Damascus have been comparatively quiet, and a military research centre is likely not a high-value target for the rebels. The surrounding countryside is plastered with bases with more defensive capability—and fatter weapons caches. Neither a Lebanon-bound shipment of weapons, unless of course Hezbollah was planning to come back into Syria with them.

More and more these days, Israel is acting in its own self-interest with little care of what the rest of the world—including its allies—thinks, and this looks to be just another instance of that. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

@Sopher99, its just that simple. The US and Israel are one and the same thing as far as Middle East policy is concerned. If the US supports the SNC, you can bet Israel does too - either way they would need be quiet about it for very obvious reasons. Another clue would be Putin and Iran's support for Assad. I must also note that Israel at this point has little or nothing to be "scared" of. Quite the contrary, Islamic countries should be "scared" of Israel (and I don't doubt the governments are). The latter apparently has the ability and allowance to attack them at will, and with a military incomparably superior to all its neighbors put together.. To put it in above terms, everyone in the region down there is Israel's "bitch", not because they want to be - but because they really have no choice at all.

All Syrian factions would no doubt enjoy "sticking it" to Israel, but what it boils down to is military and financial support. The "Jihadists", so to speak, do not even enjoy what little support Russia and Iran are able to provide. Empty ideologizing aside, they are likely to be even more accommodating "bitches".

@Lothar. I'm not passing judgement, I'm just saying that the link doesn't really show anything. It only reinforces the already-known fact that the SNC and Israel are not publicly aligned. It does not mean that the SNC is or isn't actually enjoying Israeli support (WP:OR) - and mind you, I'm not proposing the infobox discuss the subject at all: a combatant divided by a line is not depicted as aligned with the above. All that shows is that Israel has engaged the other side (+ "limited involvement"/"air strikes").

I would not presume to speculate on such fine strategic details. Who really knows at this time what exactly was attacked and why.

Since the US foreign policy in the Middle East is to act in accordance with Israel's interests (as has actually been stated), I can hardly imagine how Israel could possibly deviate to "look after its own interests". Occam's razor suggests that the US has simply continued to act in accordance with Israeli interests, while Israel maintains a public façade of neutrality out of plain necessity (due to the obvious undesirable effect their open support would have). Even so, it appears they cannot keep themselves entirely from striking indirectly at Iran now and again. -- Director (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well this is all speculation and can never be entirely confirmed or reach consensus, clearly the Israeli attacks are related to the Civil War. The Turkish situation is explored in the article and below the main section of the infobox, as are the firefights with Jordanian forces, whose casualties are listed seperately. Therefore we should all be able to come to agreement that the Israeli interventions in Syria should be explained in detail either on the main page or an adjoining article and a thumbnail should be added on the infobox informing readers that: "Syrian and Israeli forces have come into conflict numerous times and several engagements and arial attacks have been carried out since the war began"; or something along those lines,along with a link. All this "Are Israel backing the rebels?, aren't Israel backing rebels?" is intriguing, but would be best left to newspaper opinion pages and not the Wiki. -MrDjango (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I put it all in the international reactions page, under Israel. Sopher99 (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Not enough; It is not an international reaction, it is a military attack. The correct location is in the infobox just like every other military engagement in this war. -MrDjango (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The infobox is suppose to present the main events of the war. Including the Israeli incident in the infobox is highly undue. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

We should make a note, underneath the Kurdish note, that says "for international incidents (Jordan, Turkey, lebanon, israel) see" ect. Sopher99 (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

@"The infobox is suppose to present the main events of the war." Where does it say that? How is, say, support from Qatar a "main event of this war"?

Fellas, Israel has engaged in this conflict more than most countries mentioned in the infobox - with actual military force. I did not and do not propose we speculate whether Israel supports the rebels or not, but we must depict the state of affairs neutrally. The only way to that is to include Israel in the right-hand column. The entry should of course be separated from the rebels, indicating no affiliation whatsoever, and with a note along lines of "air strikes" or "limited involvement". All such a representation would indicate is that Israel has engaged Assad forces with air strikes (or in a "limited" way, depending on the exact note).

From where I stand, reading the sources, there's no question Israel should be entered in the infobox in a standard manner. The only issue that I can perceive is the exact nature of the accompanying clarification alongside said entry. -- Director (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely 100% not. This is a civil war. 2 soldiers killed means absolutely nothing. Turkey killed 12 soldiers, and Syria SHOT DOWN a Turkish plane Yet Turkey is NOT a belligerant. This is a civil war. Israel is not a belligerent in any shape way or form, as neither side have declared war on eachother. Sopher99 (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

1 military strike doesn't make Israel a belligerent. Neither does two or three or four or five. Only Active fighting between both sides. Sopher99 (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

And even if there was active fighting on both sides we still would not put Israel in the infobox, because it would be an international war and not part of the Syrian civil war. In the same way Russia's assault on Germany during world war 1 was not part of the Russian civil war despite both happened concurrently. Sopher99 (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not proposing we include Israel as a full belligerent, I'm proposing we include it exactly as Turkey (but separated and with a note, like I said). And its not "1 raid", I propose you read-up on that.

As for the rest, as I said in my initial post [14], I fully expected an emotional response like that from folks inclined towards the SNC, as having Israel up there looks very bad. I'm sure you have a whole host of excuses why Israel should "NEVER EVER EVER" be included, but empty talk and strong phrases will not make Israel's military involvement in this conflict any less real and significant. And personally, I believe partisan POV already steers the course of this article to an unacceptable level. Let us all recall that it is only aggressive edit-warring that keeps the Kurdish faction depicted the way it is, supposedly not in conflict with the SNC as well as Assad (which is, of course, contrary to the facts). I myself backed away then; I'm not going to do it now without bringing such POV-pushing up for review by the community.

Generally speaking, its not up to you to decide what the bounds of this conflict are, nor whether there should be an additional article if other nations actively join a civil war [15]. Its the sources that define the scope of this article, and the common term they use is the term we refer to it by (whether that be "civil war" or anything else). -- Director (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Fawaz Gerges, a professor of Middle East politics and international relations at the LSE, has said: "Assad will certainly try to milk the attack – it allows him to present himself as a defender of the nation ."

What happened anyhow? Syrian state claims that the strike hit the Jamraya military research facility near Damascus, killing two people. "This version has been questioned, particularly as state television has not shown footage of damage to the site." Western sources claim the convoy was attacked en route to Lebanon, implying the weapons were intended for Hezbollah"Sayerslle (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well yah, both sides' propaganda will certainly try to milk the attack. As we've seen above, the rebels are depicting it as an example of Assad's weakness against Israel, whereas the government is no doubt trying to make himself look like the "defender" against Israel. So far that I've seen, all sources pretty much agree Israel has been hitting Assad. As for whether or not the attacked government convoy was "headed for Lebanon", what does that matter? Is Syria not allowed to have convoys headed for Lebanon on its sovereign territory? -- Director (talk) 08:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No, the Israeli strikes are not directly connected to the civil war - these are ostensibly to prevent missiles from reaching their adversaries Hizbollah to protect Israel. While no friend of the Assad regime, these strikes seem to be aimed at stopping terrorism, from what news reports I've read. I consider this unrelated. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond to that. Israel bombing one side in a civil war isn't related to the civil war? Its completely irrelevant what exactly the Israelis (say they) were bombing and why. An attack, even if completely justified - is no less an attack. The above's just a non-sequitur. And I kinda think I ought to be appalled at the implication that one country arbitrarily bombing another, while at peace(!), somehow doesn't matter because it "seems to be aimed at stopping terrorism". -- Director (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

They didn't bomb "one side" - they hit a truck convoy. Surgical strike, so far not followed up with others. On another note - I'm glad your long ban is over, but you are getting into serious FORUM territory here on this talk page with throwing in personal views instead of staying on-topic - "appalled" "sovereign rights" and so on - the question under consideration is if Israel is a combatant or not. Let's correct that, please? I think you bring good things to the table, generally, especially on Balkan issues - but this stuff can easily be piled on by those who would like to see you out again. HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Israel hasn't said, has it? Sayerslle (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

this is from Associated Press 31 January :"

The attack adds a potentially flammable new element to tensions already heightened by Syria's civil war.

It was the latest salvo in Israel's long-running effort to disrupt the Shiite militia's quest to build an arsenal capable of defending against Israel's air force and spreading destruction inside the Jewish state." that seems to be the general tone of RS reports. partisan pro Syrian regime sources want to portray it as 'proof' Israel is behind the elements against ASsad -or summat - that is a partisan pov and to let it hijack the article would be a mistake imo.Sayerslle (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You can't just say that everything that happens within the borders of Syria is a significant event in Syria, and that its up to other users to prove that it isn't.

The rules are the opposite. You have to "prove" that an event is significant enough to put here. Usually through the source. We already determined that the Turkish shelling and downing of a plane does not qualify them as belligerents. When syrian soldiers shot and killed a Jordanian soldier, that did not qualify them as belligerent in the war. Over a dozen people in Lebanon thus far have been killed by the Syrian army's shelling. Doesn't mean Lebanon is a belligerent. Active fighting between both sides is what qualifies belligerents. The civil war page is about the civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

• @"You can't just say that everything that happens within the borders of Syria is a significant event in Syria, and that its up to other users to prove that it isn't." - and that has been done, in excess. I suppose you're the one who's subjective criteria of "significance" we must satisfy? No dice. As you yourself said, Turkey's involvement is similar to that of Israel, and therefore warrants inclusion along similar lines. Not as a full belligerent, of course, kindly stop using that straw man - but as a peripheral participant. Similar perhaps to Turkey.
• If Jordan and the Lebanon started bombing Syria, we'd have to include them too, yes.
• And yes, non-native participants are also relevant for inclusion in a civil war [16][17]. In addition, to repeat what I said above: its not up to you to decide what the bounds of this conflict are. The name of this conflict, and what arbitrary "decisions" you declare from said name, are not what defines the scope. The scope is defined by the sources.

@Sayerslle. That Israel and the US have a common policy in the Middle East is a matter of public record, and so is intense hostility between Israel and Assad's ally, Iran - but my comments on that subject were just personal opinions, which I would not in my wildest dreams suggest be included in the article. The point here is that Israel is bombing the Assad faction in the ongoing civil war (and not just some convoys either), and that this fact should be properly represented in a neutral infobox.

The question of Israel's intentions and purpose, declared or actual, is irrelevant and is not the subject of discussion here. It is completely absurd to say "they're engaging Assad for completely different reasons than the SNC, and therefore they're not really engaging Assad". The Kurds are basically fighting for Kurdistan, autonomy, and secession, and could not care less whether Assad stays or goes in what remains of Syria.. does that mean they're not part of this war either? -- Director (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying RS seem to be saying something like its a 'new element to tensions already heightened by Syria's civil war.' that is different to what you seem to want to do which is kind of wanting to see Israel listed as part of the anti-Assad faction in the Civil War - imo that is not what the RS are saying. so, looking at the title of this thread , funkmonk says 'israel joins' - RS say 'Israel (worries) add new element to tensions heightened by Syrias civil war' Sayerslle (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, calling the right-hand column the "anti-Assad faction" isn't really accurate. In the military conflict infobox, placement in opposing columns only indicates that these participants have engaged each-other. I think the fact that the Kurds are listed in the right-hand column should illustrate vividly that this is not a "faction" that we have there. In fact, individual factions in a column are usually delineated by means of a horizontal line. What we'd have, is Israel depicted as an independent element in the conflict, a faction of its own. All the proposed entry would indicate is "Israel; engaging Assad; with air strikes". -- Director (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Lets make a separate info box, and put it in the international reactions section. It would be titled border incidents, and it would include brief info about the Turkish, Jordanian, Israeli, and Lebanon border strikes. Sopher99 (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Never saw anything like that.. sounds manufactured. (+ So far as I know, Lebanon and Jordan have not been identified by anyone as participants in this conflict. The existing Assad/SNC conflict has "spilled-over" a couple times, briefly, onto the territory of those two conutries - but that does not mean those countries are actual participants as such. To suggest something like that would imo be very misleading.) -- Director (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

this is jonathan steele , who i believe is himself pretty pro-Assad - about the incident he states - "It was related to Israel's long war with Hezbollah in Lebanon rather than any desire to intervene in the fighting in Syria." imo this is really the conventional wisdom as it stands in english language RS. if you think israel is a participant in the civil war that is up to you , but RS sources in english dont portray it how you want imo Sayerslle (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well the whole international reactions need an overhall in any case: Last time I checked China wasn't included, Russia's fierce criticism of the opposition wasn't included, the Non Alligned Summit statements were not included, Syrias allies in Latin America were not included. The whole section is biased and non NPOV as it is. Funny how the current layout of the infobox has been acceptable for months upon months, but as soon as Israel is involved, certain editors here seem to get very, very upset. If it's good enough for the Turkey, Jordan conflicts, it's good enough for the Israeli attacks, there is NO difference. -MrDjango (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Other than the fact this is a civil war? Anyway, those sections are Summaries. This is a 207,000 byte page. The appropriate limit is 200,000. If anything we must cut down on expanding the article. Sopher99 (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Then divide the page into more articles, I'm more interested in getting as much factual info on the wiki as possible, than in your silly bytes ;). The infobox should contain a summary of the military interventions by Israel, just as it does the engagements by Jordan and Turkey, any military interloper must be listed on the infobox. MrDjango (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

@Sopher99. WP:ICANTHEARYOU? Do you intend to keep repeating that fallacious "its a civil war" argument? For the fourth time: there are many conflicts referred to as civil wars that also include very substantial and active foreign involvement ([18][19][20][21][22] etc). In fact, probably most civil wars in modern times actually include foreign involvement. This one is no exception - with Turkey vigorously supporting the rebels. And yes, believe it or not, we do still cover them all in one article and generally avoid creating nonsense WP:POVFORKS. We also include the foreign participants in the infobox as well, no matter how peripheral (e.g. Serbia in the Russian Civil War).

And generally speaking: it is not up to you or I to decide what the bounds of this conflict are. The name of this conflict, and what arbitrary "decisions" you declare from said name, are not what defines the scope.

@MrDjango, well of course we're not about to start creating POVFORKS for the sake of Sopher99's taking care of SNC's image :).

@Sayerslle. Another icanthearyou? As I said twice, the pretext for Israeli bombings is entirely irrelevant for this subject. What matters is that they're bombing Assad's faction in this civil war. Whether they're bombing to "fight terrorism", "make the world safe for democracy", "defend themselves", etc. has no bearing on the fact that they are, in fact, bombing Assad. Whether they're bombing Assad to weaken Hezbollah, whether or not their bombing Assad is 100% justified, none of that constitutes a reason to exclude Israel as a peripheral participant in this conflict. -- Director (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually its not up to you to decide it either. The Scope is not infinity, stop acting like it is. None of those links you gave showed foreign intervention in the form of singular one time airstrike. They all showed countries with foreign troops on the ground. Like Iran. Sopher99 (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

We alreayd have those. Specifically for what django is talking about, the international reactions page. Sopher99 (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR -what happened is disputed anyhow - just give some links then to english language RS that say 'Israel is bombing Assad's faction in this civil war' and I'll hear that wont I Sayerslle (talk) 01:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Specifically links that don't happen to be fringe sites, russian state tv, or opinion pieces. Sopher99 (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

What am I supposedly "deciding"? There are cited sources, you know. "Infinity scope?" What? :)

Feel free to include Israel's raids in the international reactions sub-article, but they certainly need to be included here in the main article as well. Even though I doubt military action is what is meant by "international reactions" (never mind though). Not only is it not a "singular one time airstrike" we're talking about here (will you stop repeating those sort of misleading statements?), but the very idea that I'm now supposed to look for some incident of one air strike is just laughable.

This is getting absurd, Sopher. I'm getting tired of picking apart these convoluted "retorts". Its taking far more effort than its worth. I'm sorry, but your arguments don't make much sense at this point, and its reasonably clear you're not about to agree on anything you interpret as depicting the SNC in a negative light. No matter what may be. (Also kindly do not edit my posts by inserting your replies piecemeal.)

And now no doubt come arbitrary, ridiculously high standards for sourcing and demands for exact specific phrases - that basically allow you to dismiss anything. I've played this game before, many times. There is no need for any further sourcing:

• Israel has bombed Syrian military targets, i.e. Syrian government targets (Associated Press, e.g.). That is not a disputed point. They did not bomb the rebels, that much is clear, and we need no more as far as the infobox is concerned.
• Israel's actions impact the Syrian civil war and are related to this conflict (e.g. "A strike draws Israel further into Syria's conflict — a civil war that has already deepened the region's divides as its powers have taken sides with arms and funding. It also marked a challenge to Iran, which has backed and financed Hezbollah.", Wall Street Journal). That also is not a disputable point.

As a faction that has engaged the Syrian army with military action, Israel needs to be added to the right-hand column in this conflict. As a peripheral participant(!), clearly separated from other factions listed therein. Its that simple. It should be an obvious, routine addition - if it were not for the POV-pushing. -- Director (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Israel is not a belligerent. So we can't put it in a belligerent side in particular. What we can do is either

---

a) create a new infobox at the international reaction section, that would depict the brief Turkish and Israeli conflict.

---

b) Add Israel as a note form.

In reference to b), scroll down to below the casualties section. You will see a bar that says "2 Turkish Phantom F4 Pilots killed". You will then see a bar below that one that says "1 jordanian soldier killed".

This is the format that is best. We place a third bar down there that reads "2 Syrian soldiers killed by an Isreali strike targeting a weapons convoy being sent to Hezbollah".

We also place a fourth bar that reads "4 Lebanese civilians killed by Syrian army shelling onto Lebanon."[23][24] Sopher99 (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As you like to say: absolutely not. Both "a)" and "b)" - are just nonsense. Its a cockamamie subversion of the template layout and the standard entry of participant factions, obviously designed specifically to visually distance the Syrian National Coalition entry from any mention of Israel. You're actually trying to mix casualty entries with factions themselves. Its just POV-pushing bordering on plain old propaganda.

I must also say I'm awed by your ability to completely ignore previous posts and just "keep on truckin'"... -- Director (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

1- Israeli is not a civil war combatant. Active fighting between both sides is what makes up combatants
2- Adding isreal is undue weight. Israel did 1 operation in the entirety of the 21 month conflict. 2 dead soldiers compared to 60,000+ dead civilians and combatants is clear undue weight. If your rebuttal to this is simply "you don't get to decide what is undue weight or part of the conflict" you are pretty much telling me "you don't get to decide what is clearly obvious in both logic and the reliable media".
3- The FSA and Mujihideen identify themselves as direct enemies with Israel. So you can't even remotely put Israel in the same column. rebels and mujihideen are not direct enemies with the Kurds, as they oftne make peace, and the majority of them don't want to be enemies with eachother. Israel its the opposite.
4-The strike is simply not notable enough to be put in the infobox, going back to the undue weight part. The overwhelming majority of RS sources do not identify Israel as a combatant of the civil war.
5- Israel is currently not engaged in war with Syria. If its not engaged in war, its not part of the war.
6- You are the POV pushing one, trying to get a single incident to equal weight with the conflict as a whole. You accuse me of "trying to defend the SNC", but it goes both ways. You can't defend adding blatant "notability violations" by saying "I'm not trying to make it look like their on the same side"
Goodnight. Sopher99 (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

1- I could not care less about your definitions of "belligerent" or "active combatant". Israel has participated in this conflict - that's what matters with regard to including it.

2- Adding Israel as one of the main factions would be undue weight, but that is not what is proposed. Clearly, as Qatar is in there, a faction that has engaged here with its military forces more than justifies inclusion. And yes, both Qatar and Israel do. Also, for the fifth time, its not one attack.

3- A horizontal line in combatant columns is usued to indicate non-affiliation. I.e. it is completely irrelevant what the FSA and Mujihideen identify themselves as. But thank you for proving me right with regard to your motivations here.

4- The issue is not about the inclusion of an "air strike", its about including a participant in the conflict. And since obviously anything that shows Israel in close proximity to the SNC wouldn't be "notable" by your personal standards, you'll forgive me if I don't pay them much heed. I'll just keep to the sources.

5- Nonsense. Neither is Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, or most of the countries listed in there, actually. Though, as a matter of fact, Israel and Syria are technically at war, and have been since 1967.

6- No comment :). Have you not heard, for example, of Israel and the Syrian military exchanging artillery fire last November?

-- Director (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Few points: A) elements of the rebels (mujahideen) openly fight the Kurds, but they're still thrown in the same column B) Israel shelled the Syrian Golan after munitions were shot into the Israeli occupation zone from Syria. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A) Indeed, and as I recall, that blatant infobox error is also thanks primarily to Sopher. You see, I bet it "looks better" to imply that the Kurds are also somehow aligned with the rebels. Just as it wouldn't look good to have Israel there. I can see a clear pattern, myself. B) Yes, that's what happened if I recall (I amended the statement). But the point isn't who shot first, for our considerations here it suffices to note that the two sides have engaged in combat at that time as well. -- Director (talk) 04:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Given how Israel is ramping up security in the occupied Golan for the express purpose of defending itself from Islamist rebels, it wouldn't look right to have them in the same column. Makes sense, given how Nusra is basically Hamas 2.0, and will probably turn its sights westwards in the (unlikely) event of Assad's overthrow. Again, I still disagree with your contention that Israel supports any side in the conflict, however tacitly. They'd rather Syria bleed itself out to rid themselves of a hostile neighbour. The airstrike seems more of a "controlled burn" tactic by which Israel at once damages Assad (with whom they were on the road to peace with only just before the uprising broke out) and denies rebel groups (who count among them a large number of characters even more dangerous to Israel than toothless, old Bashar) the chance to get at whatever was struck—which, according to that article, included SAMs, which the rebels would love to get their hands on, but for which the government has no real use at this point in the war. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Again we're asked to enter into the ethereal plain of wishes and intentions. The link esentially provides quotations of a primary source - which should simply be quoted, not used to extrapolate conclusions (WP:PRIMARY: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation"). Primary: "Israel says they're building up for defense against Nusra"; conclusion: "Israel really is defending against Nusra". In other words, what Israel or Assad or whomever claim, must not be taken as fact (when found in primary form). I mean who knows?

The point is that thus far they've only been in conflict with government forces (i.e. the Syrian military). And, so far that I know (am I wrong?), Syrian Golan is actually deep within Assadland. Either way, if we're including Israel, there's no question as to where the neutral category is. You can't put them in a third column - they've not fought the rebels in any significant way. -- Director (talk) 09:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, the Syrian Golan is a nice little strip of rebel territory—and we're talking spooky Islamist ones at that [25]. The army has largely backed off from the area because it's scared shitless of accidentally provoking an Israeli response. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

its not 'the ethereal plain of wishes and intentions', its the relentless drift of informed commentary in RS about what happened. a lot of that RS 'interpretation of primary source material' describes Israel as ultra-nervous of a rebel victory - your wish to jettison all the nuances of interpretation that inform RS commentary of events for an undue pov reason is an echo here of what Fawaz Gerges said "Assad will certainly try to milk the attack" - thats all this is. like gaddafi said it was all al qaida in 2011- a destruction of all nuance is wanted for pov reasons. so Associated Press's ,'the latest salvo in Israel's long-running effort to disrupt the Shiite militia's quest to build an arsenal capable of defending against Israel's air force' will become 'engaging Assad' (FunkMOnk/DIREKTOR) -but wp should follow english language RS representing events. Israel has said it attacked a convoy now - who to believe? Its a complicated, world - i personally hugely distrust those who want to shatter all the nuance - and are sure that 'neutrality' demands we put Israel as pro-rebel. Sayerslle (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ugh... again. Such "nuances" do not matter when discussing just bare inclusion in the infobox. There is no difference one way or the other. For this discussion, it does not matter why Israel has engaged the Syrian military. It does not matter whether or not they were justified to do it. It does not matter at all whether Assad is "milking the attack" or whatever - unless you're here to "thwart" Assad, that is.

All of that is pointless, unrelated drivel as far as this issue is concerned. Naturally, feel free to elaborate on it in the article - but the issue of bare inclusion in the infobox does not go beyond the simple fact that Israel and the Syrian army were in military conflict. That is all people are trying to convey, and therefore that's all we need to discuss. (e.g. NBC headlines: "Israel drawn into Syria conflict, fires missile across border") -- Director (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

just 'bare inclusion' in the infobox is undue at this stage imo. i know your ugh desperate about this. drawn into Syria conflict, like a 'new element to tensions already heightened by Syria's civil war.' is fine , but the infobox is ill suited for this info imo. 'thats al we need to discuss' is a bit totalitarian sounding to me - russia is neutral, israel is pro-rebel, the rebels are salafist - its all so ugh clear. if it said in infobox , 'Israel - new element -'widely believed, hit missiles bound for hezbollah' that would be english language RS - 'bombed Assad' would be using OR language imo- never heard that phrase of the attack, -i dont know how its reported in MOscow/Serbia/TEhran , thats true enough. Sayerslle (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Infobox does not contain participants in the conflict. It contains combatants in the conflict, and non-commerce arm suppliers. Israel had no intention to go to war with Syria. Therefore it doesn't go into the infobox. If a Russian missile killed Al nusra while they tried to storm the chem weapons factory, for the sake of stopping al nusra from getting chem weapons only, we would not include Russia in the infobox, because that would be undue weight. Russia would have no intention of being a combatant in the war, and would still not be a belligerent. Put 2 and 2 together now and think what we would do for Israel. Sopher99 (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, Sopher, I'm not going to mince words with you. I could not care less about your own personal definitions of "belligerent", "combatant", "active participant" or whatever else you think of next. Over the past months Israeli territory has been sporadically shelled by Assad's military. In November the two sides exchanged artillery fire in the Golan, and now either one or two(!) air strikes have been launched against Syrian Army targets [26]. Sources report Israel has been "drawn into the conflict":

• NBC News: "Israel drawn into Syria conflict, fires missile across border"
• Los Angeles Times: "With airstrike, Israel steps into Syria conflict"
• Wall Street Journal: "A strike draws Israel further into Syria's conflict..", etc..

@"Israel had no intention to go to war with Syria. Therefore it doesn't go into the infobox." Wow. Since you're obviously not reading my posts, let me point out again that Israel actually is at war with Syria. They can hardly declare war on each-other again. Also, sources report that Israel is likely considering further air strikes:

• The Telegraph: "Israel 'considering further air strikes on Syria'"
• Financial Times: "Israel might convince itself that further military strikes are necessary." etc..

With Qatar and Saudi Arabia in there, the fact that Israel has engaged in actual military action more than justifies inclusion in the infobox. Not as a main combatant, obviously, but in a manner similar to Turkey, and as a faction of its own.

@Sayerslle: ugh#2. After discussing irrelevant questions of Israeli motivation, now you're discussing the irrelevant issue of phrasing - in a discussion about whether the word "Israel" should be entered into the infobox? Bah, humbug.. -- Director (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

well why are you claiming 'not as a main combatant, obviously' - Assad :"the Israeli aggression in one of the scientific research centers in the Jamraya area on the outskirts of Damascus exposes Israel's real role in cooperating with the hostile external forces and their aides on Syrian soil in an attempt to undermine Syria's stability, weaken it and cause it to abandon its national stances." this is crucial in our further understanding, surely, and Israel should perhaps be considered as a major player. did you mean 'dribble' earlier, by the way, when you were slagging me off. i wondered if you meant drivel. REUTERS : "State news agency SANA quoted Jalili as reaffirming Tehran's "full support for the Syrian people ... facing the Zionist aggression, and its continued coordination to confront the conspiracies and foreign projects". you may be cavalierly deciding Israel is 'not a major combatant' DIREKTOR - why are you determined to underplay the Isrraeli role? i think i'm seeing a pattern here.

Sayerslle (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ugh #3. What in the world does any of this have to do with anything?? What is this post, just plain trolling? Of course Iran and Assad are going to "cry foul" and "milk" the attack as much as they can - that obviously doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I'm not being "cavalier", I'm being unbiased and objective. While Israel certainly has participated in this conflict, no sources claim its one of the main participants. Though they do say Israel may be planning to further escalate its involvement. (My heartfelt apologies for the spelling error, iOS auto-correct what can you do..) -- Director (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

do you mind stop writing 'ugh' before each of yuor precious expostulations. Ta. Sayerslle (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I was just inspired by your hilarious parody above. Cheerio.. -- Director (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"al-Assad accused Israel of seeking to “destabilize” Syria, state news agency SANA reported." That is a serious accusation is it not? it is not a small thing to be accused of seeking to destabilise a country. it may be clear to you that that is not saying Israel is a main participant but it is not absolutely clear to me. i hope clear heads and minds prevail anyhow , over the paranoid, insulting ones. thats me done on this. cheerio. Sayerslle (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Um.. sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. -- Director (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So what now? Do we go through DR? -- Director (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have so called "personnel definitions" of participation or combatants. Fact is Fact. Participants is vague and doesn't go into the info box. Combatants and armaments supports go in the infobox. Israel is not a combatant. They don't anywhere remotely actively fight with the Syrian army. Putting Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon is undue weight. The end. Lambasting me for "personal definitions" and "obvious pro-snc bias" is not going to get you anywhere closer to the facts of the situation and how the infobox is formatted. Sopher99 (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There are no "participants", "combatants", "belligerents", etc. And there is nothing "vague" here. Its very simple and straightforward.

The "combatants=" parameters of the {{Infobox military conflict}} template are intended for (quote) "countries whose forces took part in the conflict". Sources report that Israel has taken part in the conflict (e.g. "With airstrike, Israel steps into Syria conflict"). Those are the facts. The rest is just POV-pushing.

Its right there in the simplest possible terms. If you still disagree we can take this through DR. -- Director (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Right. The silent treatment :). If noone objects I'll just add the entry. Or are we now supposed to edit-war rather than DR? -- Director (talk) 06:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I placed Israel above the Kurdish faction is that the Kurdish faction is separated with a double line. And should actually constitute "combatant3", being in conflict with the Free Syrian Army as well. If we keep them listed in the "combatant2" column, and use the double line to indicate confrontation, then I disagree that Israel should be separated with a double line as well - as, unlike the Kurds, they have not to date engaged the Free Syrian Army.

In addition, I followed the logic that the Kurds are no doubt more important than the Mujahideen as well as Israel - but are still placed below to more appropriately illustrate confrontation with the FSA. -- Director (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

First of all, there is only 3 users in agreement with your position, including yourself, as compared with 4 users, including my self, against position. 5 depending on how you want to interpret Lothar's response.

Secondly, I directly quote the infobox guide you linked " 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." This completely supports the resolution for undue weight. Sopher99 (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Director's links to major media coverage describing Israel as "stepping into" or being "drawn into" the conflict are very strong. On the other hand, Lothar von Richthofen is probably correct to point out that while the Israeli government is an opponent of the Assad regime, and has now conducted military strikes against it within the context of this conflict, it'd be difficult to classify it as an ally of al-Nusra (which is not given sufficient weight as a participant here anyway). -Darouet (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The more time put between this incident and the final decision on Israel's placement, the better. The media have a tendency to sensationalise such developments, as it makes for good, fast-selling news—I recall similar media reactions when Turkey got fed up with stray shells and pummelled government artillery on the other side of the border, and that front's been pretty quiet for a while now. Given how Israel is getting yelled at by pretty much everyone for pulling this stunt, I think they'll think twice before trying it again (then again, you can never be too sure with a loose cannon like Israel). Two weeks is probably a good amount of time to let pass to determine just how much weight to award this. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I must point out again that listed factions separated by a horizontal line are not depicted as allied. @Lothar, you may think Israel is likely to back off, but as I've shown earlier, analysts disagree. -- Director (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, Israel is ever the wild card. While I hope they keep out, I realise that this may not occur. Nevertheless, international support for the bombing(s) has not really been forthcoming, with both the UN and NATO member Turkey criticising Israel for it. At any rate, I don't think that it's incorrect to characterise the media as having sensationalist tendencies, and I don't think that putting some time between this event and a final decision is disagreeable. There is no WP:DEADLINE, and we should take care not to get carried away. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just not at all certain Israel's inclusion is likely to become more acceptable to detractors like Sopher if we wait 2 weeks. I think we'll just end-up in the same place. Otherwise, I'm ok with the wait. -- Director (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

We'll just have to wait and see on both the real-world and Wikipedia fronts then, eh? As for "analysts", they've been predicting the imminent fall of Assad for a year now, with no such thing materialising. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thats because "fall of assad" is too vague. Before assad falls, Damascus has to be taken, or he has to be killed in a bombing. There are 54 bases in Rif Damascus alone, of which only 10 have been raided/taken by the FSA, (8 within the past 3 months). Then there are 8 military bases in Damascus proper, as well as 17 Visible intelligence and police branches, within the city. These total of 75+ bases and branches hold 20,000 troops (including republican guard, but not including shabiha). FSA and islamists groups have between 10,000-15,000 operative in Rif damascus and Damascus proper, but they are low on ammunition. In other words, a successful assault on Damascus requires saving up ammunition, or doubling of manpower. There is only 3km worth of land that separates "assad controlled syria" versus "Rebel controlled Syria" Sopher99 (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for your analysis, Sopher... [27] -- Director (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If you look past the headline, the analysis in that article reveals a muddier picture. Sopher is correct to note the obscene militarisation of the Damascus area, and the ammunition problems faced by the rebels. But even with enough ammo, the battle for Damascus won't be won in a day, a week, or even a month. The ammo would be better in the north or east of the country (esp. Aleppo, Idlib, Deir ez-Zor), where the rebels have had the upper hand for a while and are pretty well entrenched. The main problem areas for the rebels are in religiously-mixed Hama province and Homs (where they've been holed up for near on two years). Damascus is pretty much stalemated—fighting is still ongoing in Darayya despite government claims of its capture last month, rebels have now managed to push into the city proper (high water mark around the main train station in Qadam), and the army is still holding the airport. And while all this is happening, rebels are creeping slowly forward in Latakia province and are a mere 12km from Bashar's hometown [28]. Taking either it or Latakia proper will be a hell of a fight, sure, but honestly nobody has the upper hand now. And while Arab rebels (who are having increasing difficulty getting along [29]) and Kurds are duking it out in Ras al-Ayn, Kurds are kicking the army forcefully out of oil-rich areas in Hassakeh province [30]. Nobody is going anywhere, and now there seem to be some slow movements toward a diplomatic solution [31]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yup, that's basically what I'm saying: the war is not that clear-cut, and its only over when its over. I myself don't really care either way as long as the war's done with. I've been through a civil war and know how it feels to have your country set back 30 years or more. -- Director (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of countries being set back 30 years, I've outlined some concerns about the article four sections below which would be a more productive use of energy than continuing this thread much longer. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point. -- Director (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• See also Lebanese civil war. The Israelis mainly fought Palestinians there, yet are considered part of the war by all accounts. Israel is a belligerent here, attacking one side in this conflict. Any other claims are badly constructed propaganda. FunkMonk (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously. Personally, I see no reason to wait. But if that's the consensus.. -- Director (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

On what planet are you living that Israeli participation in the myriad of subconflicts that made up the Lebanese Civil War—up to and including full-scale ground invasions and nearly two decades of occupation of Lebanese soil—is remotely analogous to a couple of airstrikes on one day in this war? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not the first attack by Israel during this war, and it probably won't be the last. Why do you people keep forgetting the attack last year? FunkMonk (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow two whole attacks. Are you referring to when Israel got pissed that shells kept landing in the occupied Golan and laid the proverbial smackdown on the source of the shells? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There was that. And the Syrian Army has been known to sporadically shell Israeli Golan in the few months before that. -- Director (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Which of course means that whether there was a civil war or not in Syria, all these sporadic back-and-forth military conflicts between Syria and Israel would be taking place, as well as Israel acting in what they view as their own security against missiles being sent to Lebanon, et al. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, thanks for your "analysis" as well, but I think I'll stick to the sources myself. The last incident between Syria and Israel before the war took place in 2007. Five years of no activity preceded the civil war. For future reference, your own OR "conclusions" concern noone but yourself, and while we've all indulged in some speculative forum-like discussion here, the very idea that OR (such as your own) should in any way influence encyclopedia content is just silly. -- Director (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

During those years of "no activity", Assad and Israel were working on a peace settlement. A quiet front militarily, but quite a bit happening on the secret diplomatic front. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well obviously there will be diplomatic "activity" between Israel and Syria. Are there any neighbouring countries existing on earth with the absence of some form of diplomatic activity? The point is there has been no credible reason offered as to why Israel can be excluded from the infobox, when Jordan is included. Can someone, anyone, please explain how two successive bombing attacks by Israel fail to be mentioned in the infobox? -MrDjango (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Because a few people here are afraid that the truth will "play into the hands of the Assad regime". FunkMonk (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd distinguish between routine diplomacy and talks involving Israel withdrawing from the Golan as part of a permanent peace deal. Not that it matters at this point. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well if anything, a technical state of war with peace talks, as opposed to just a state of war, seems to me an even more pacific situation. -- Director (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ankara embassy bombing

Should the recent Ankara bombing be mentioned in the article, along with other international incidents? The group responsible for it says "It is the Syrian people who will decide how, and by whom, Syria will be governed. The AKP government is a lackey to imperialists who seek to overthrow al-Assad, who refuses to bow his neck to them… We condemn the use our land for the imperialists’ interests against Syria."[32]. The group is pro-Assad, but the Syrian govt doesn't seem to be involved in it.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Based on that, yes, a brief mention of interest. If more comes out about this later, of course, it would weigh in much more heavily. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Ankara bombing is related to the Syrian Civil war, but indirectly for sure. The group that did it is an old, well known Marxist group, the Revolutionary People's Liberation Front (DHKP-C), that hasn't been nearly as active as it had in the 70's, 80's. It was apparently one bomber who was known to be involved in '97 Istanbul attacks. This is not pro-Syrian or much to do with Syrian politics. The reason for the bombing is because of American presence because of the conflict, and that is how it is indirectly related. So, is it enough related to put on this area as a new article or just as a place in the article? Jacob102699 (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Lol, if Israel isn't a belligerent, how the hell is this incident relevant to this war? No Syrians were even involved. You guys amaze me. FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• It really shouldn't be mentioned... from what I read, the group responsible is a far left kurdish group seeking independence from turkey and was striking at the US embassy because of the US support of turkey. Jeancey (talk) 00:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Future, based on this most recent info that I've found, now I'd say "no" until this story gets firmed up: "Turkish authorities say belonged to the Marxist Leninist organization known as the Revolutionary People's Liberation Party, or DHKP-C ... Ecevit Sanli, as he was identified by Istanbul police, died after detonating his bomb ... While theories have been floated, neither Turkish nor U.S. authorities have detailed why they think Sanli blew himself up." HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It should be mentioned, as the group responsible for the attack claim the role of Turkey in the Syrian civil war as the main reason 4 the attack.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

"Supported by:"

I have a problem with the "Supported by:" headings and the participants listed under there. Template:Infobox military conflict states that the "combatant=" parameters are for those "whose forces took part in the conflict". The infobox is already over-complex and confusing, and the vagueness of the "Supported by:" category does not help.

• If the forces of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and "Al-Quaeda in Iraq" never took part in this conflict, they should not be listed in the infobox.
• Turkey should imo be listed in the infobox plainly, without any misleading headings, but with the clarification "(border clashes)", so as to describe the limited extent of their involvement.

Not only would this logical, standard criteria allow for a more simplified infobox, it would also get rid of the ambiguity said headings create. Is Qatar fighting or aren't they? Can you tell from the infobox? -- Director (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The "supported by" was a compromise solution for some long intensive debate half a year ago. If you want to know the full context of why its there, you can find it in the archives above this talk page. Sopher99 (talk)

Compromise solutions are usually very bad solutions. Like this one, that leaves the reader wonder whether half the entries actually fight in the war or not. We know what entries are supposed to go into that parameter, and should simply follow the standard for inclusion used throughout Wikipedia. There is also such a thing as consistency. -- Director (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Mujahideen

Are the Mujahideen groups in Syria entirely independent, or are they fighting together with the Free Syrian Army? I wonder if its necessary to separate them with a line in the infobox, but I'm not familiar with this particular aspect of the conflict. They are not separated in the 2012–2013 Syrian Kurdistan conflict article. -- Director (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

They often fight side-by-side on the battlefield, but they have entirely separate command structures, fight different battles (e.g., the rebels fighting Kurds in Ras al-Ayn are actually not FSA as is sometimes said, but rather Nusra and Ghuraba al-Sham), compete actively but not (yet?) violently for resources and popular support, and are treated differently by the international community. Sometimes FSA leaders actually bar Islamists from serving under their command, as FSA General al-Fajj did at the Base 46 siege. Its a complex relationship, and the line is there to show that. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, typical case then as I understand it? They're both independent combatant authorities, but if they do often fight together they're not unaffiliated and really shouldn't be separated with a line. Trying to simplify the infobox.. too many lines in there.

P.S. please see above regarding Israel placement. -- Director (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Length

We're up in the 210k range now, and the editing lag for this is getting pretty obnoxious. Anything that can be tightened or cut should be. Keep in mind that we not only need to present what has happened, but also leave room for new developments. Honestly, we probably spend too much space here on military developments, while shunting the colossal humanitarian problems to a mere subsection towards the very end of the article. We have battle/campaign articles for finer details on various military operations, and while death and destruction may be more interesting to watch and record, it's also a very incomplete picture of the war. To illustrate, we devote 6 paragraphs to the peripheral hubbub over chemical weapons, while only one to the hundreds of thousands of civilians who have fled their homes and are in extreme poverty and hunger (45,000 in Azaz alone, which is only just now receiving aid [33]). And that one paragraph looks to be half the size of the one we devote to one single Turkish plane getting shot down. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree with that. A war is about military conflict first and foremost. As callous as that may sound, imo humanitarian issues are a subject of their own and shouldn't really be over-emphasized. -- Director (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the single scraggly paragraph on refugees, I don't think humanitarian issues are overemphasised—if anything, they're underemphasised. I'm not saying that the article should go on an on about it, that the proverbial tables should be turned against war coverage, but that there's imbalance in the article—e.g., chemical weapons speculations and the Turkish plane non-incident.

Regardless, the article is too damn long. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe we can put it back to underneath 200,000 bytes by removing excessive references.Sopher99 (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a short-term fix at best and does zilch for improving the quality of the article. It's a start, though. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• As before, several redundant images could be cut. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Third row in Mali

The Northern Mali conflict (2012–present) infobox has three separate rows, though the infighting between the "rebel" forces are minuscule. Whoops, wasn't that the argument against a third row for Kurds here? FunkMonk (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No replies yet? I can almost hear the hard thinking up of bogus excuses. And note that our friend Futuretrillionaire was in support of the three rows there. Just a tiny double standard. Internal divisions are only allowed for the "bad rebels" in Mali, not the "good" ones we have in Syria. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You are completely oblivious to the very reason why we don't have three rows.

Undue. Weight.

Islamists and Taurags have almost equal participation. In fact The taurags even started the fight.

Kurds have less than 1% of the share of the fighting in Syria.

To be exact. 150 deaths on both sides from fighting with Kurds/60,000+ = .0025 or .25%

Kurds only hold maximum .25% of this entire conflict.

When we take the amount of times Kurds are mentioned in reliable media covering Syrian civil war, and compare to media coverage overall, that number is even less.

Sopher99 (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Lol, and there we have it, right on time. So the long wait was because Sopher had to make "the numbers" add up on his calculator. I see, the details of a war are determined by numbers. In fact, this entire page seems to be testament to the fact that terms can be redefined to serve an agenda. Israel cannot be part of the infobox, because external factions need to make a "certain number" of attacks. A war faction can't be considered separate because it has not contributed with a "certain percentage" of fighting. These minimum amounts of involvement are then again determined by Sopher, Futuretrillionaire, or whoever else that fancies himself an Internet revolutionary. Are you fucking kidding me? And as far as I remember, the only person who kept raving about "undue weight" was yourself, so I fail to see how that can be the reason for anything. The third row was reverted simply because you and three others didn't like it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

We didn't like it because of Undue Weight. The Kurds are not against rebels, they just want to be left alone from both rebels and government. Since the rebels are not a government, and Kurds have to fight the government to be left alone, they go on the same column as rebels.

Nothing here is "decided" by me, by the way. However, since I am a very frequent editor of this page and talkpage, the chances of my voice being a key point in a debate is much more likelier, than lets say, some one who doesn't actively participate in the talkapge. Sopher99 (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Math and logic alone does not dictate undue weight. The kurds have less than 1% of reliable media attention too. Sopher99 (talk) 00:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The Kurds have killed more rebels than army soldiers, and are fighting way more with them than with the government. This means that they are against them. But here the NUMBERS and PERCENTAGES don't count, apparently! You're taking revisionism to another level, it is nothing less than absurd. FunkMonk (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

On contrare. 65 rebels died, compared to 49 soldiers died (as well as 37 defected), does not scream blatant anti-rebel ideology. especially because most of those 65 rebels were mujihideen attackers as compared to the Kurds attacking the government. More rebels were killed by mujihideen than Kurds. So such low numbers don't tell us much, but they are compared with huge numbers like 60,000 you have a much more confident answer. Sopher99 (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Soldiers killed by the FSA are counted together with those few killed by the Kurds, so that just might be the problem, don't you think? At least the Mali article makes sure which faction was attacked by who. In any case, your arguments are invalid, no one is arguing the Kurds are with the government, but that they are with neither, hence a third row. It seems your "logic" dictates that since the Kurds are not aligned with the government, they must be aligned with the rebels. Which is preposterous. FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

They are against the government, and would not like to bothered by the rebels. But mujihideen insist on intruding, so clashes erupt. We do not deny that Kurds are fighting rebels, a bit, and so we put that note below the kurdish part of the box.

None of which matter by the way, because none of your reasonings solve the reason behind no third column in the first place. Undueweight. We can just as easily take out the Kurds from the infobox, and instead expand info in the "kurdish section" of the main article.

Whatever it is, we are not putting 1% at equal weight with 99%. 00:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Your numbers don't matter. Since when has the factional alignments shown on a Wikipedia war article been determined by some guy sitting at home making calculations? Who are you trying to kid? The Kurd are not with the government, and not with the rebels. This is an indisputable fact. "Undue weight" is a figment of your imagination, not supported by anyone else in previous discussions. So you better try to come up with something better than ridiculous math and false interpretations of past non-consensus. FunkMonk (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There is really no reason why the PYD should be lumped with the rebels—even the rebels don't want anything to do with them. Keep in mind that it was the rebels who attacked Ras al-Ayn, and didn't stop when the skeletal government force ran—they turned right on the PYD who were the dominant force in the city. This report by AJE makes it pretty clear that so long as the rebels keep deliberately attacking Kurds, the PYD/YPG will have nothing to do with them. And at this point, it's clear that the fighting in Ras al-Ayn isn't some separate jihadi campaign. For maybe the KNC, putting it in the same column is kind of reasonable, but given how the PYD/YPG is known for terrorising people who dare even display the FSA flag on their turf, putting them as on the same side as the rebels is just plain stupid, no matter how many times you squawk about "undue weight". This isn't a question of weight—if they're so insignificant, then why include them in the first place? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

We can remove them if you guys want. Sopher99 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Or better yet we can remove the Kurds and replace it with "28 Kuridsh YPG members killed in varios clashes" at the casualty section Sopher99 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Either one is fine. We just can't put a third column, as that would assume equal weight with rebels and government forces, despite the fact they make up less than 1% of the situation in Syria. Sopher99 (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we can "just put a third column", your personal opinion is irrelevant. "Equal weight" is irrelevant, they're not on the same side, for God's sake. FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Many fractions of the FSA are allied to the Kurds. They are on the same side. Second of all, putting a third column is undue weight. It is not undue weight though to remove the Kurds/or simply put them in the infobox by just stating the 28 Kurdish casualties and providing a link to the Kurdistan conflict. Sopher99 (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Please actually take a look at who is listed in the infobox. Does it say "Kurds"? No, it does not. It lists the PYD-YPG. Please present an argument for why the PYD should be treated as more rebel than government and not a party unto itself. Secondly, impact on a war is not measured by casualties—which in the case of the PYD are largely self-reported and likely lower than in actuality—so please stop trying to force-feed us that red herring. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk)

Nothing was timed. I always come back to the Syria wikipedia pages around 7:00PM my time to update the death toll on the timelines. Not to mention make sure the pages aren't being "involuntarily" vandalized. Sopher99 (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Why are we having this debate again? There was no consensus from the previous one, and I don't expect another one in this discussion. The situation with the Kurds hasn't changed much since then. Just keep it the way it is until the situation significantly changes.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it was filibustered by you and like two other people until the debate abruptly stopped. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

ICANTHEARYOU does not apply here especially because its the proponents on the third row who are ignoring the fact that adding a third column is undue weight. If you want the Kurds to be removed or summed up in the casualty section, thats fine with me, and if FutureTrillionaire agrees to it as well, there would be consensus. Sopher99 (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight isn't relevant, and looks like an awfully silly argument anyway when you consider that higher quality (=non-journalistic) 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". The reason why news media addresses them in less detail is because A) there has been less fighting going on in West Kurdistan due to the government withdrawing from most areas B) it's more isolated and C) Western powers tend to sidestep Kurdish issues for fear of peeving the Turks, and especially so with the PYD, who are the Syrian equivalent of the PKK.

There is nothing insignificant about a force that exercises control—and arguably more efficiently and safely than the rebels—over vast swathes of territory and prevents both other sides from entering by force when necessary. "Insignificant" is not measured by blood spilt—which isn't too reliably measured anyway. Additionally, you've failed to respond to any of my points in my last comment in the long thread above. And since when did decisions become some sort of triumvirate decision between the three of us? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. -- Director (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

If FutureTrillionaire and myself are opposing you, Director and Funkmunk in a debate, FutureTrillionaire and myself make up within the vacinity of 1/3 to half of voice of reason. If me and FutureTrillionaire were to agree with you and Funkmonk, there would be 0 opposition. I hope this clarifies things. Sopher99 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No one said Kurds are Insignificant. They are just not significant to have a third row in a civil war whose 99% of the fighting and conflict is between government and rebels.

The Leader of the PYD does not recognize that it is fighting FSA at all. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/07/world/middleeast/syrias-kurds-try-to-balance-security-and-alliances.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Sopher99 (talk) 23:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

“Those groups attacking Serekaniye, we don’t consider them as Free Syrian Army,” said Saleh Muslim, the leader of the P.Y.D. Instead, he said the groups that attacked “are mainly just taking orders from the Turkish regime.”

The Free Syrian Army “is a name, or a trademark, not registered to anybody,” said Mr. Muslim. “So anybody can come from his home and get a hold of some weapons and say, ‘I am Free Syrian Army.”’ Sopher99 (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Members of the new bloc have started to field militias, with Mr. Jumaa saying the union has about 1,500 fighters in Syria and will ultimately take control of thousands more troops being trained by Kurdistan Regional Government forces, the Peshmerga, in Iraq.

Mustafa Jumaa, who leads the Azadi Party, one of the factions in the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union, said the alliance had been formed out of frustration with the inability of the Kurdish National Council to make decisions.

Like others in his alliance, Mr. Jumaa holds a mostly favorable view of the mainstream Syrian opposition and the Free Syrian Army, which he referred to as “a national army for Syria.” Sopher99 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The NY times article released today definitively shows the PYD is more pro-rebel than any of us knew. It also shows the Kurds do not recognize the Ras al Ain attackers from Turkey as true opposition. This solidify's the position of double line on the rebel column. Sopher99 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

In turn, there is ample evidence to say that the rebels in Ras al-Ayn do not recognise the PYD as being "revolutionary", but rather as puppets of Assad. And while Mr. Muslim may not regard the rebels in Ras al-Ayn as "FSA", his forces in e.g. Aleppo haven't proven themselves keen on any sort of collaboration with rebel units in that city, who are more unambiguously "FSA". Additionally, in cities like Qamishli and Hasakah, government troops and YPG fighters maintain essentially peaceful, side-by-side security presences in the city—this notably does not occur between the PYD-YPG and Arab rebel groups. On the other hand, in Aleppo, the government bombed PYD-YPG districts last month, killing over 20 Kurdish civilians, including several children. The relationships are incredibly complex, and shunting them into the "rebel" column glosses over them—they are equidistant from both sides in alignment. "Undue weight" is an argument to be considered if we are talking about whether or not they should be included, but when it comes to their alignment, it's really quite meaningless. "Weight"—undue or otherwise—does not determine a group's alignment in a conflict—that is a matter of factual accuracy, first and foremost. The current infobox is factually inaccurate.

And again, we aren't talking about all Kurdish groups, but specifically the PYD. The Democratic Union is a recently-formed bloc of Kurdish parties who politically oppose the PYD. As of late, one of its larger constituent parties, Yekîtî, has been trying to build up a military wing and has been getting in scraps with YPG militia as a result. The PYD is the dominant party in West Kurdistan, both politically and militarily, and generally seeks to keep it that way. Actions of KNC, Azadî, Yekîtî, or other parties should not be treated as evidence of the alignment of the PYD. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You ignoring the fact that this was just "any muslim can say", this was the 'leader of the PYD". Furthermore they don't recognize them as being from the FSA, but rather people highered by Turkey. Sopher99 (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Lol. Please read what I said again. I said "Mr. Muslim" as in Salih Muslim Muhammad. And they "recognise" them—including the popular rebel unit Jabhat al-Nusra—as being hired by Turkey because it views Turkey behind any plot against Kurds, not because of any confirmed link. FWIW, Turkey is a major rebel supporter—hence its inclusion in the infobox. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

We already have a note that says "For fighting between Kurdish and rebel groups, see 2012 Syrian Kurdistan conflict" right below the PYD listing. It's pretty obvious for readers that the PYD and the rebels are not allies. I still don't see any real need for a 3rd column. And as Sopher pointed out in the NYT article, the Kurdish leaders don't consider the opposition to be an enemy (yet?).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

FutureTrillionaire, what is not obvious from the infobox layout is the fact that the rebels and the Kurds are in conflict. It is absurd beyond belief to have a 2012–2013 Syrian Kurdistan conflict article that uses three columns, but a Syrian civil war article - which includes it - with two columns. It is even more difficult to believe that anyone could seriously advocate depicting this conflict through a silly note, when the infobox layout specifically provides for a depiction of such a conflict. In other words, there is no reason whatsoever to include the Kurdish faction in the right-hand column rather than the left-hand column. 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.."). Unsourced nonsense.

We have 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.

The pro-rebel POV is so thick you can barely see the article; and every change is being stonewalled. Something really has to be done.. -- Director (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• We need a "request for comment" or some such to get fresh eyes to look at this. Sopher and friends wouldn't give the Kurdish forces a third row even if they proclaimed full independence. FunkMonk (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking more like ARBCOM.. :) but yeah, anything at all would be a good idea. -- Director (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If they declared full independence that would only enhance my position. Declaring full Independence is declaring full opposition to the government. Sopher99 (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, but I have to say this: you're a partisan POV-pusher, Sopher. And no matter what the situation happened to be on the ground, you would still find ways to interpret it as "enhancing your position". Thank you for making that plain. -- Director (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not a partisan POV-pusher. Its a simple fact that if you declare Independence your declaring freedom from the government. Last time I checked the Syrian government were not the rebels. Sopher99 (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

'Facepalm'. If they declared full independence, Erdogan would have even more reason to unleash his Nusra dogs upon them. Arcbcom or request for comment is the way to go at this point, Sopher has displayed a complete lack of judgement/extreme POV-pushery. FunkMonk (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

How about we be more specific about the Kurds.

The PKK militia fights the rebels. So lets put the PKK on the Syrian goverment's side.

The KNC's forces, the PYD's forces, and the recently formed "Azadi" militia fight the goverment. So lets put them on the rebels's side.

For both cases we can list them under "support" if you would like. Sopher99 (talk) 03:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There's no PKK in Syria, we've been over this. There is the PYD, which is the Syrian affiliate of the PKK. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You still ignore the following point: THEY ALL FIGHT BOTH SIDES. Neither is aligned with either faction. FunkMonk (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No. -- Director (talk) 04:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Because...? Sopher99 (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

...because, unless I'm very much mistaken, the KNC and the PYD also fight the rebels, just to a lesser extent. -- Director (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The PYD doesn't recognize that its fighting the FSA in Ras al Ain. The KNC has long been a supporter of the direct Syrian opposition, never came into conflict. The Azadi militia of 1,500 fighters was formed last month, hasn't fought yet, but declared support for FSA as a "national army". The PKK have been arresting activists and working has part-time government militia before Summer of 2012. Sopher99 (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

THERE IS NO PKK IN SYRIA. ONLY PYD. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Declarations don't matter with regard to the infobox layout. It doesn't matter who "recognizes" what. Factions are divided into columns exclusively according to with whom they are in conflict. Nothing else matters.

According to the situation you describe, the PYD should be in the third column, while the KNC should be in the second. The Azadi militia should not be in there at all. -- Director (talk) 04:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Three columns are undue weight. I would much rather move the Kurd's to the government's side and just specifiy underneath the battle of Ras al Ain. Atleast that won't be blatant undue weight. Sopher99 (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)It has nothing to do with "weight". PYD and rebels don't give two shits about wikipolicy when they're killing each other. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Stop misquoting policy. And if you move my posts about again out of their context, in spite of prior warnings, rest assured you will be immediately reported. -- Director (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I have a diff showing I "moved your post". Sopher99 (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. -- Director (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Can you link to me the policy page which forbids me from making intentions above another's comment, particularly a comment being addressed to that user? Sopher99 (talk) 04:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nah, typical double standard issue that sadly happened very usually in WP. It seems that adding a 3rd row depends on the ideology of the major editors...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Syrian rebels cooperating with Israel

"Assessing the damage to the facility is difficult. Cellphone videos shot by Syrian rebels show burning buildings at what is described at the research center, but the damage seen on those videos is somewhat light. " http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/world/middleeast/syrian-weapons-center-said-to-be-damaged.html?pagewanted=2 Monticores (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Rebels video tape everything from Quneitra to Qamishli. This does not show coorperation with Israel.

If a warplane explosion occurs, rebels in the area would come to the site to video tape the damage. Sopher99 (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The article did not mention Syrian rebels cooperating with Israel. Filming the aftermath is hardly cooperating with Israel.--Liquidinsurgency (talk) 01:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

syrian government did not disclosed the location of the research lab. And the bombing site would have been sealed off by the syrian army immediately after the bombing. So rebels were conveniently near a top secret syrian military research facility when israeli warplane bombed it? Monticores (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

And that^, ladies and gentlemen, is what WP:OR looks like. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Third row for Kurdish forces

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.[34][35][36] 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)

Comments on the RfC by involved editors

• (edit conflict) 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 [37]. But let's stick to the PYD as long as we're here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:16, 7 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/wiki/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/wiki/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. [38]) 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 [39]. And "spillover conflict" within a country's own borders? Laughable. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Models

Wikipedia: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)

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)