Talk:Syrian civil war

Hezbollah and Mahdi Army

Okay Iran I understand, but you're bringing Lebanese and Iraqi militias into this as well? I'm trying to understand where does your source come from. Wouldn't surprise me if they are true as it's not illogical for the regime to bring allied mercenaries and militants, but it still requires verification. UltimateDarkloid (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Where does Hezbollah come in? Even one source for the "Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution" is not enough. These should be removed from the supporting forces along with the Mahdi Army. The support of Shabeeha is the only well documented source. Useless propaganda is not needed on Wikipedia too, we hear enough of it on the news.206.188.79.137 (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Since no one could provide sources on this for the past month. It is clearly not ture, at least as of what is known right now. 206.188.77.206 (talk) 20:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The Syrian army has raided the Lebanese side of the border TWICE in the last few days, and Hezbollah has given a shrug, while their opponents in the Parliament have been going berzerk.Ericl (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

According to what? FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Damascus and Aleppo remain quiet

I've said this before above, but our article still fails to reflect his basic fact. The uprising in Syria has not reached the two largest cities, Damascus and Aleppo. See Life in Syria’s Capital Remains Barely Touched by Rebellion in the New York Times from September 6th. We need to change the information in our article to be in line with this analysis which is accepted even by opposition activists. Tiamut^talk 08:39, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

OPPOSE

I am disagree about causes of uprising,causes of uprising areequal rights for Syria's ethnic and religious groups, and broad political freedoms, such as freedom of press, speech and assembly.Dictatorship is not correct.Anderson john (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It is correct, because they are opposed to the current presidential system (elections with only Assad allowed to run) otherwise known as dictatorship. Sopher99 (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Hunger strike

I can`t find any source about hunger strike in Syria in last mounth,last news about hunger strike in Syria was about 6 mounths — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anderson john (talk • contribs) 12:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.jpost.com/Headlines/Article.aspx?id=211153

http://www.english.rfi.fr/middle-east/20110216-syrian-rights-activist-freed

http://www.yalibnan.com/2011/03/07/13-jailed-syrian-activists-are-staging-a-hunger-strike/

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/19/142192.html

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE24/009/2011/en

Here you go. Sopher99 (talk) 12:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I can`t find any source about hunger strike in Syria in last mounth,last news about hunger strike in Syria was about 6 mounthsAnderson john (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

there is not Hunger strike

I can`t find any source about hunger strike in Syria in last mounth,last news about hunger strike in Syria was about 6 mounths Anderson john (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

And 6 months ago was Still part of the uprising. So the Hunger strikes are part of the protests. Just because a particular type of civil disobedience happens for a few weeks doesn't mean it isn't part of the Syria protests Sopher99 (talk) 14:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

can`t find

I check these sources,these sources are old and before Uprising Anderson john (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

2 of them are March 15+. 15:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

these sources are two cases at last 6 months,and 2 cases couldn`t characteristic for uprisingAnderson john (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The protests are part of the uprisings. Not all uprising are armed conflicts. For example, what happened in Bahrain was an uprising. Sopher99 (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Assad has not resigned

In the infobox information is given suggesting the resignation of Bashar al-Assad as President. al-Assad has not done so, one of the citation links is broke and the second merely reports on the calls of protesters for Assad to resign; Assad is indeed quoted throughout the article as the 'current president' of Syria. This needs to be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.164.8 (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you misread the infobox... -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

File:7riyat-Final-.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:7riyat-Final-.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 19 September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of rape

"Allegations of rape Defected soldiers reported rapes in restive towns and districts."this is invalid with invalid referenceAnderson john (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In any case, does a single sentence with a questionable claim warrant its own headline? FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Useful quote

Not sure where this is best incorporated (if not used elsewhere), but this quote may be worth using somewhere:

"In July there were 1,200,000 protesting, now [Sep 28] there are not even 200,0000 because people are arrested or in hiding" - Syrian Human Rights Observatory. <ref>[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4cf21356-e8f5-11e0-ac9c-00144feab49a.html Syria’s protesters find new voice in the classroom], ''[[Financial Times]]'', 2011-09-28 </ref>

AndrewRT(Talk) 17:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

There are some activists who are controlling this article without giving chance to others to add useful informations from neutral sources. --Kevorkmail (talk) 14:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The "insurgents" are called the Free Syrian Army a rival army/defected army - thats called mutiny.

Second, 3000 "insurgents" did not die. The goverement only claims 700, and so we already put that in the infobox.

I7laseral (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleting any mention of the existence of the Free Syrian Army and claiming, based off of the mysterious death of a minor Syrian scientist, that the regime is up against some scourge of assassins, isn't "useful informations from neutral sources". I do think it's clear that protesters and activists, faced with overwhelming violence from the regime and its defenders, are increasingly taking up arms, but we need to address that in a less toxic forum than an edit war between a brazenly pro-Assad partisan and the rest of the editing community. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Assassinations and armed insurgents should be included in the infobox.--Kevorkmail (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And why? Because you say so, because it makes the Syrian opposition look less credible? It hasn't even been confirmed that opposition-aligned people have carried out any killings of high-level Syrian officials. Can't say the same vice versa. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And why not? We can claim the same for the aother part as well. But I have provided neutral sources about the assasinations and armed group, and please do not say that those armed fighters were members of the Syrian army, all sources indicated that many armed civilian groups were and are still acting in Homs, Hama and the governorate of Idlib... The same statment goes to Banias and Daraa too.--Kevorkmail (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Once again, that is a the Free Syrian Army (mutinying rebels), and because Syria does not allow free journalists to come, those assassinations cannot be verified. Its is true there are armed groups, but they are mutineers and rebels, not insurgents. If this was not the case, why is this the first time this happened to this scale in decades? Especially when concurrent with the first protests in decades? And particularly concurrent with Syria's execution of defectors? Sopher99 (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Free Syrian army ADMITS to being a rebel group operating major cities.Sopher99 (talk) 15:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And for the infobox, regarding the main locations of the riots, you cannot include Aleppo and Damascus for one simple reason: taking the fact that the population of those 2 cities is more than 3 millions each, the marches of few groups of 200 or 300 oppositionists brought from the nearby governorates do not bear any significance.--Kevorkmail (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That so called Free Army does not count more than 50 pitiful members, while there are many armed islamic groups who had attacked many neighborhoods of other minorities in Homs and Lattakia.--Kevorkmail (talk) 15:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Journalists are welcomed by the Syrian government. The BBC news correspondent had already produced reports from Damascus. The same was done by "Russia Tosay" and many other Arabic news networks.--Kevorkmail (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you've gone from playing devil's advocate to blatantly lying about reporters' access to Syria. Yes, the government has allowed short-term visits to government-selected locations by government-approved news agencies on occasion. There has been no "authorized" reporting from any protest hubs throughout the uprising - and you know it. So stop it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about the current period and not the recent months and... be polite while writing your replys.--Kevorkmail (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The Free Syrian army counts hundreds of members. Also the protester number is in Aleppo had a max of 10,000 at one point. Damascus protests number in the tens of thousands. People were killed by the security forces in Both Aleppo and Damascus. I7laseral (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You said hundreds and I will assume the same... does not make a sense. This fact does not refute the presence of armed groups of extremists who had killed and assasinated many memebers of Syrian military forces and mainly Alewites. For the figures you mentioned about Aleppo, maybe you are talking about a city which bears the same name but located in a different universe.--Kevorkmail (talk) 16:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

1 - The majority of the military generals are alawites, so if the Free Syrian army is going to Target military generals (which they admitted to), chances are its gonna be an Alawite by sheer chance

2 - There are only a few "extremists" on the Syrian border and Deir Ezziour. Just like the Algerian alqaeda and Libyan Alqaeda did not make a belligerent in the Libyan civil war or Algeria protests, These "extremists" have no real influence on the uprising. They are a problem that has been ongoing for 20 years. The Uprising refers to CITIZENS and MUTINEERS.

3 - Aleppo has 2.3 million people. 10 thousand protesting because of the death of an opposition leader/ political commenter is not unreasonable. Other times thousands protested there as well. Aleppo is a city, not a citadel. I7laseral (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Your first statement confirms the fact of "Assassinations". For the second one, the extremists are spreaded all over Syria, Homs, Hama, Idlib countryside, Baniyas, Daraa, etc.... and they are taking part in the violence against the security forces and the army, for which it is unacceptable to delink them from the ungoing events. For the third one, Aleppo WAS 2.3 million in 2005 (excludig the metropolitan area), and did not witness any large-scale protest or demonstration. The same goes for Damascus as well--Kevorkmail (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That's only true if you ignore reliable sources, which we don't really do on Wikipedia unless they're verifiably false. And even if the Free Syrian Army has said it wants to kill military commanders loyal to Assad, there's no indication they've had any success in doing so. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

1 - We can't put assassination because they are unconfirmed. The Syrian government does not show the bodies to journalists, let alone let them speak to witnesses.

2 - There were protester deaths in Aleppo and Damascus. The Damascus suburbs of Douma, Zabadani, and Moaddamiyeh ect and even Midan Damascus (central damascus) has had tens of thousands protesters, and hundreds of protester deaths.

3- 10,000 people in Aleppo at one time, as well as several thousands in other time is significant.

4- Aleppo still has around 2.3 million people, and probably more now that it is 2011, which raises my case. I7laseral (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And note that not only members of the military were assassinated but also civilian personalities (scientists, medical experts, doctors, etc...) were targetted, such as Dr. Hassan Eid and Dr. scientist Aws Abdel Karim who were assassinated beacause of being pro-regime activists.--Kevorkmail (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Got a source for those that isn't SANA or another regime mouthpiece? -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Activists also report the death of Hassan Eid. in Fact ONLY SANA news claims they were assassinated by "terrorists". Everyone else blames the GOVERNMENT for their assassination.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/mobile/?type=story&id=2016338717&

http://www.therecord.com/print/article/601671

I7laseral (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Syria is a targetted country by Israel, the West and USA, and for sure the western media will not adopt the SANA statement.--Kevorkmail (talk) 17:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Armed gangs have existed among the oppositionists since the beginning of the events, and now they are claiming to form the so-called Free Army!--Kevorkmail (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Israel, the west , the USA? WTF? Truth be told, Isreal and the west/USA DOES NOT WANT ASSAD TO GO. It took them 6 months to call for assad to resign. Defectors from the Syrian army make up the free Syrian army.

For 6 moths their resources were, and for a signifficant part still are, tied fighting Libyan government. Syria was a sideshow then. Only now has come the right time to move on.46.13.56.75 (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Egypt also claimed that Israel was the source of the protests. Khalifa of Bahrain claimed that protests in his country was an iranian conspiracy. Algeria also claimed foreign conspiracy. Gaddafi as well. This is just getting stupid. Protests are not conspiracies. THey are PROTERSTs. THEY HAPPENED IN EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY. Its just that Assad regime does not want to give up power because they know they would be punished for crimes. I7laseral (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If I may ask, are you posting from Syria, or are you posting from another country? And I would hardly describe the likes of NOW Lebanon, Al Arabiya, Al Jazeera, and Alsumaria as "Westernized", FWIW... -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

His main page says he lives in Armenia.I7laseral (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

-"Syria is targeted by Israel, the west, and USA". Sounds like a paranoid conspiracy to me. The reason they don't take Sana's reports so easily is that the Syrian government and Sana refuses to provide verification or proof. Have you ever heard of Libyan State TV? I7laseral (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am Syrian-Armenian from Aleppo.--Kevorkmail (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

living in Armenia I7laseral (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

In Aleppo.--Kevorkmail (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Check out my contributions in the article of Aleppo.--Kevorkmail (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are born and raised in Aleppo. But your main Page says "This user lives in Armenia" I also noticed many contributions to Armenia towns as well I7laseral (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC) Regardless, Assad has many "pro-assad" users online who support him, so it doesn't surprise me eitherway. I7laseral (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right regarding the contributions but I live in Aleppo... let's quit discussing personal issues.--Kevorkmail (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This page is getting too long. I deleted the pointless discussion of whether this was a conspiracy or not. I7laseral (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC) I'l be gone for the next few hours. I7laseral (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible for a group of army dfectors which does not count more than few hundreds to fight a regular army without the support of a large number of armed gangs and criminals? The presence of armed extremists is confirmed even by Syrian oppositionists.--Kevorkmail (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no "large numbers" of armed gangs. And considering only a few dozens soldiers have died, yes. Once again The Syrian Government does not let journalists or the UN investigate those matters. For Now we will not include it. Sopher99 (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

By the start of the events, all journalists were allowed to report from Syria. After the appearance of too many fabricated reports about the events, the presence of some media representatives was abandoned. On the other hand, many foreign reporters continued working in the country like Russians, Irainas, Chinese, Lebanese, etc. Why do not you accept reports releasd by "Russia Today" for example.--Kevorkmail (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, I will ask for an arbitration from an administrator as the article is being monopolized by anti-Assad activists.--Kevorkmail (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That is blatant Lying. No journalists were allowed in Syria (without government minders) from March 15th onward.

Regardless I have added instances of Sufis attacks on the main page. But to only be fair i added Shabeeha (REAL arm gangs killing the people of Syria) to it as well. I7laseral (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Do not discuss about Shabbiha as long as you do not know the truth about them. Shabbiha are the main group within the Alewites who are against the current leadership. But now it became a habit to lable any regime-loyalist with the name of Shabbih.--Kevorkmail (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you Kidding me? Shabeeha against the government? Thats a laugh. What do you have to back up then. Anyway, end of discussion, for today. I put in attacks by Sufis. I7laseral (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ya. What WP:RS do you have saying "Shabbiha are the main group within the Alewites who are against the current leadership"?? I've never heard that in a reliable or unreliable source. --BoogaLouie (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Shabbiha were a group of smugglers backed by Rifat al-Assad. They were always involved in skirmishes against the special security forces led by late Bassil Al-Assad and later on by his brother Maher al-Assad.--Kevorkmail (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

If Sana is not reliable enough in itself, there are plenty of non-western sources, such as Russian and Chinese, that report the same things. FunkMonk (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Even the American government admits there are armed elements operating in the country - and they are quoted in our article. Why is this information not being included in the infobox exactly? Tiamut^talk 08:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably because it is not an "official" stance. It probably never will be, whatever the anti-government guys do. Just like the Libyan rebels aren't massacring blacks, and the Egyptian military isn't beating protesters. Or that anything is happening in Bahrain for that matter. As for the US and Israel apparently wanting Bashar to stay, sure, that's why they secretly funded opposition groups for years. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Armed groups and Assassinaions will definitely become included in the infobox as characteristsics of the oppositionists. Plenty of sources are indicating to this fact.--Kevorkmail (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We are forgetting that the Syrian government carries out many more assassinations than the opposition - we would have to include the Syrian government crimes as well. Once again we are only referring to the protest movement. This Free Syrian army and insurgent stuff is in essence NOT part of the Uprising. We already put armed groups in the inbox, remember? Sopher99 (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Syria's Grand Mufti's son was assassinated by armed oppositionist criminals in Idlib earlier today.... he died few minutes ago. That's enough.--Kevorkmail (talk) 19:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The Syrian government has openly announced that the army will destroy those armed gangs.... it is ironic to classify this under the term of assassination.--Kevorkmail (talk) 19:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. THe Syrian government kills human right activists. The Syrian government has also killed teachers and clerics, even in Aleppo. It is my natural assumption that the grand mufti's son was killed by The Syrian government, even if he was an Alawite. The Syrian government would kill Alawites to if they speak out or join the sides of protesters. Just like the radical Hutu;s killed moderate Hutus in the Rwandan Genocide. The FSA admitting to killing the medical surgeon claiming he was an informer, but the professors were killed by Syrian government (the professors deaths were not even announced on state media) Sopher99 (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The Mufti was Sunni, not Alawite. Anyway, it's amazing how "armed protesters" keeps disappearing from the infobox, when it is pretty much confirmed by everyone now, even the Americans. Give it up. It was even replaced by"Shabiha" until now. Really? The pro-government "shabiha" are apparently a characteristic of the uprising? FunkMonk (talk) 06:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep asking people to give up their job? Still don't get it?46.13.56.75 (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Libyan or Syrian??

The deaths section claim Lybians killed not Syrians, please check this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.222.195.69 (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Syrian raids into Lebanon

There have been two of them in as many days and one farmer has been killed. Does this count as Lebanon or Syria?Ericl (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

This is according to what? FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of the World Media.Ericl (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Outrageous NPOV violation when users put as belligerents parts who are not taking part in the conflicts and have denied being involved. The only source of that are some crazy rumors circulating in the opposition. The NPOV is also justified by a nearly infinite quantity of other violation of neutrality in this article--ChronicalUsual (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with this one, its almost as crazy as the conspiracy theories about Israel and the USA. Sopher99 (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have carefully reviewed the sources given for Hezbollah and Iran as belligerents.

Source are

1) An anti Hezbollah Lebanese deputy 2) An anti Hezbollah Lebanese radio 3) An unknown Kuwaiti newspaper who said that the Hezbollah sent 5 000 fighters in Syria (which is around 50% of its men) 4) Someone leading the Youth Coalition of Syrian some obscure opposition group 5) Some defectors shouting in arab on a Youtube video

Seriously? Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia or the garbage of internet?

For Iran this is even worst, as only one source if provided, based on the account of one defector.

I will remove the reference of this in campaign as both Hezbollah and Iran have formally denied being involved into the fights

If some user continue to try to put this absurd claims in the campaignbox we will have to add Israel and the United States as belligerents like noticed Sopher as the Syrian regime claim this.

Make your choice.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Other than the campaign box issue, can you offer some examples of the "nearly infinite quantity of... violation[s] of neutrality"? GabrielF (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The editor is unswervingly pro-Assad, just FYI. I think he's going to have a problem with the article no matter what is in it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I am going to take away the NPOV for now, as we have come to a consensus that the iran-lebanon thing should not be in the infobox.Sopher99 (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree, it's more productive to just discuss the concerns. The same thing happens over and over again in civil conflict-related articles, and there will always be unhappy editors involved. There's enough watchers in this article to avoid tagging, especially unspecified general violation claims. ~ AdvertAdam ^on-mobile 20:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The 40% stat

User FunkMonk believes that it is nessesary to state that "an estimated 40% of all Syrians oppose the government" in the lead paragraph. The statement is backed up by this "reference"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-tactics-of-intervention-why-syria-will-never-be-libya/article2212174/

However Heather Roff and Bessma Momani (the creators of the article) do not state where they got that information, they could have easily pulled those numbers out of nowhere. Nor do they state a time it was estimated as, or "who believes it".

The article itself is even under the "opinion" section.

Furthermore the statement does not belong in the lead, just like we don't put anti government estimates in any lead in any of the arab spring articles. Sopher99 (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Opinion articles are useful on Wikipedia for notable commentators to express their opinions; them making fact statements without citing a source, though, isn't credible as WP:RS. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be possible to find more sources stating the same, and if attributed, there should be absolutely no problem in adding them to the article. Will probably come up soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, more sources will be appreciated. Although, it has to state who's opinion it is (including their credibility), and definitely stay off the lead. ~ AdvertAdam ^on-mobile 07:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Strength of the combatants

It would be nice to have strength section in the civil conflict infobox on top for readers to get immediate info on resources of both sides (that would be something like 10,000 or more for Free Syrian Army side and about an order of magnitude more for Syrian Army side). --78.0.242.159 (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. But it isn't really a civil war at the moment, as the Syrian army's primary targets thus far have been civilian populations. Master&Expert (Talk) 13:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

^ Which is pure, unverifiable propaganda. Yes, a section like the one outlined above could easily be added, there should be sources for it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree the conflict is rapidly escalating to a civil war. Open fighting is being waged by loyalist and defected troops. I'm sure the article will be renamed in brief.

@FunkMonk — What do you mean by "pure, unverifiable propaganda"? The fact that the Syrian army has primarily attacked unarmed protesters? Master&Expert (Talk) 09:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

For reasons of disclosure, the comment directly preceding my response to FunkMonk was not mine. Master&Expert (Talk) 12:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. since the start of the uprising there were many reports of armed protesters, which no one in the West took seriously, and counted everyone dead as a "civilian", even though many appear to have been from the Syrian military/security forces and armed oppositionis members instead. Of course civilians have been killed, but the number could easily be inflated, especially since the organizations reporting the numbers to HRW and such are part of the opposition themselves. FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not for us to pursue conspiracy theories about media bias, etc. We only report what reputable sources say. We do not use our own subjective judgement on whether we think they're right. We cannot go against the reputable sources (which don't stop being reputable just because some of us don't personally agree with them) simply on unsourced accusations of bias. For our purposes, they're civilians until reputable sources state otherwise, and it's not a civil war until it's commonly referred to as such.204.65.34.226 (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

But even that is subjective. A Western source parroting opposition claims is somehow more reliable than a Russian or Chinese source parroting Syrian government claims? That's a problem. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want to include something on the article relating to those claims, you're going to need some pretty reliable sources. I have only read maybe one or two articles in the past year that have mentioned anything about Syrian civilians being armed. I'm not saying everyone the Syrian Army has killed were unarmed, but the vast majority were just peacefully protesting. That's what virtually all media outlets have reported, and that's what we need to reference when we're talking about the death toll. Master&Expert (Talk) 18:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

^ As I said, if you only follow the Western (and allies, such as Gulf states) media, you only get the opposition side of the story. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Who would you consider not a western (and allies) media source? The Syrian Government? Jeancey (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If you had read my previous posts instead of just being facetious, you'd see China and Russia mentioned. As well as the media of the other countries that have voted against sanctions. And before you get going, no, I'm not saying either is correct, but that the Western media gobbles up everything claimed by the opposition groups, whereas the same is true for the other side and the Syrian government. Therefore, no, western media, and even western human rights groups, are not more credible than anything else, since they get all their information (without any exceptions) from eyewitness accounts delivered by partisans who want the regime gone at any cost. Every single claim made by the opposition, no matter how outlandish, is unquestioned and parroted by Western media. Just like Gaddafi's "viagra-warriors", and massacres that turned out to have been committed by the Libyan rebels themselves. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually I wasn't being facetious. Even the Iranian news sources have pointed out the attacks of unarmed civilians. Any news agency who is using a single source, in this case the Syrian Government, shouldn't really be considered reliable. Also, the "western media" reports on pro-Assad rallies all the time. Selective viewing of news sources is dangerous no matter what side someone claims to be on. Jeancey (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jeancey, also army defector strength vs Syrian army strength does not belong on the infobox. We don't put the army vs defector army strength on the Yemeni uprising box, do we? The number of defectors is too ambiguous for now anyway. Sopher99 (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

If so, why is there an sourced size estimate on the Free Syrian Army article? Why wouldn't it be also put in the infobox of this article to have a nice comparison? So readers won't have to open Free Syrian Army and Syrian Army articles to get the numbers. That is the whole point of this thread. --93.136.189.249 (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I object to this. We don't do this for the Yemeni uprising and yet defectors and government troops constantly attack each other. Putting those numbers on the infobox won't mean anything, because out of the 300,000 troops in the Syrian army, only a fraction of that number is participating, and only a fraction of the FSA actually does anything. I7laseral (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Clashes in Damascus

There has been numerous reports of clashes in Damascus. Army defectors recently attacked a major air fore intelligence base there. Shouldn't we be making an article on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goltak (talk • contribs) 07:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If the recent battles in Damascus are true, perhaps we should soon be changing the article to The Syrian Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.49.188 (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Major reptuable news sources, including Al Jazeera and Alarabiya are indeed reporting the attack on the air base as factual, and videos have shown numerous gunbattles betweeen pro and anti government forces battle in Damascus...Yes, perhaps we should be changing the article's name.Goltak (talk • contribs) 07:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

We won't be changing the name until those major reputable sources start calling it a civil war. Remember, we aren't a news source, so we have to cite things like that. Jeancey (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. In Yemen tribesmen have attacked government buildings in Sanaa. Doesn't mean its a civil war. One should also note that both the Opposition AND the Syrian government will refuse to call it a civil war even if one actually broke out. Sopher99 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

In this conflict AlJazeera nor AlArabiya can be considered "reputable". Not after the wholesale pruduction of lies and fabrications about the Libyan war. Both need to be treated with the same suspicion as the Syrian government media.46.13.56.75 (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Why? They only reported false information when it was "confirmed" by the NTC, and even then they didnt state it as fact. What lies did they produce? Jeancey (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not employed for writing on WP. Thus I do not keep a record of all the crap spouted (especially by AJ) then. But, suffice to say, it is controlled by Quatar gov which held a major stake in that war and seems pretty active/supportive of this conflict too. Though I do respect the people working for AJ, for every state media there are allways matters where "reputability" capital is to be "spent" regardless the consequences. And the current media war against non-aligned countries by the GCC/West combo is just it.46.13.56.75 (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You can't say something is unreliable and then not give any evidence. Thats like saying anything published by the russian or chinese state media is unreliable when talking about the Iraq war or afghanistan simply because they have a vested interest against the US. it's completely false. There's no reason to assume that Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya aren't reliable. Jeancey (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Informed sources do characterise Jazerra's reports as unreliable, placing them on par with Syrian government reports. See for eg., this excellent piece in the Eurasia Review: "Of course, there are two narratives here – the Al Jazeera version where the violence was all one way until army ‘defectors’ began shooting back and the Syrian government version in which armed gangs were causing chaos across the country well before the ‘defectors’ joined in. Like most narratives neither is likely to be completely true or untrue, but there is abundant if unreported evidence in support of the case being made by the Syrian government. Many of the accusations against the Syrian government are coming from exiled groups such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Al Jazeera reports them with little or no attempt at verification. Its bias in its ‘reporting’ of Libya and Syria was so great, in the eyes of its Beirut bureau chief, Ghassan bin Jiddu, that he resigned in disgust."

See also this xinhus report on claims that the baath hq in damascus was attacked on nov 20 [1]. The reporter on site says the building is intact and it seems explosions heard by residents were due to sound bombs detonated by unknown actors. There is certainly a lot of confusion and fabrication permeating all reports coming from the country. We dhould include information about all the actors various biases, and al Jazeera and the London-based Syrian Human Rights Observatory are currently not treated in our article when they should be. Tiamut^talk 18:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Jazeera is a Qatari government mouthpiece and Arabiya is a Saudi government mouthpiece. It's as simple as that, that's how news work in the Middle East, and why they are inherently biased. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want to open a discussion about the reliability of Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya at the Reliable sources noticeboard, be my guest. Until then, the evidence clearly shows that it is reliable. Also, the source you cited, the Eurasia Review, is an opinion piece. We generally don't use opinion pieces because they aren't using verified facts, they are opinions of the author. Jeancey (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

On contrare FunkMonk, Al jazeera and Al arabiya are not mouthpieces, as their stories almost direct replicas of other independent news (BBC CNN RUETERS TELEGRPH GUARDIAN NY TIMES ECT). PressTV and RussiaToday are state controlled media, meaning they are literally government assets.

The Simple Truth is that because the Syrian government does not want non-state news channel to film anti government protests, the Syrian government accuses any news source that goes against its wishes as Conspirators. A protest is a protest, and an attack by army defectors is an attack by army defectors. There is no conspiracy here, not that i am saying you are making those accusations. Sopher99 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Violence isn't sufficiently covered

The article has numerous references to "violence" and various figures and organizations condemning the violence, but is incredibly vague on what violence is occurring. Other than the mention of tanks and snipers in the lead (which is also lacking, as it's not clear whether these were used as deterrents or actively fired upon civilians), the article does not discuss the violence that is being condemned whatsoever. If the violence is such a major part of the uprising, it should be discussed in detail somewhere in the article. Some guy (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources began describing the violence as "Civil War"

Like the SkyNews [2]. In light of the full blown armed clashes, if the situation escalates - it is in fact a civil war. The only question is shall we rename this article into "Syrian civil war" (like done for "Libyan civil war"), or we open a new article "Syrian civil war", keeping the "2011 Syrian uprising" as a notable stage of violence, which lasted for 8 months before becoming a civil war (the uprising is the prequel of civil war for this matter, and is notable to be covered within its own article).Greyshark09 (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, the actions of the free syrian army seem to be uncoordinated with those of the Opposition. We should probably wait for atleast a month or so to see what sources say and if they become coordinated. Jeancey (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Piblished by Al-Arabiya "Russia likens attack on Syrian intelligence headquarters to ‘civil war’" [3].Greyshark09 (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

News report from today's NYT: "Deserters from the Syrian Army reportedly carried out attacks against the offices of the Syrian ruling Baath party in northwestern Syria on Thursday, a day after they claimed an assault on an intelligence base that Russia, Syria’s closest ally, said was bringing the country closer to civil war". [4].--Zarateman (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind the word Likens. He is not saying it is a civil war. Second, it is only one russian diplomat. No-one else is even likening it to a civil war.

Also unless protesters take up arms against the government directly, a new page 2011 Syrian mutiny would be made after a while. A war between an army and mutineers of an army is a mutiny, not a civil war.

Third, both the opposition And the Syrian government oppose calling it a civil war. The protesters are not attacking, and the government refuse to acknowledge they are hunting down other Syrians.

Fourth, keep in mind the Battle of Sana'a (2011), despite dozens of casualties and the opposition tribesmen taking over government property, those confrontations in Yemen did not end up becoming a civil war.

Sopher99 (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

No. I oppose calling it a civil war. It makes me say about few reasons:

1. 1 - The protesters claims to want a peaceful revolution. They never talk about taking up arms against the Bashar regime.
2. 2 - The media which says about civil war actually says "Is Syria is going to a civil war?"
3. 3 - Army clashes doesn't represent a civil war. We should have take up the same in Yemen too.
4. 4 - As long as there are marches, you cannot call it a civil war. If it's a civil war, there were be no civilian demonstration. 60.49.57.195 (talk) 01:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree for the most part. Except 4) - there were HUGE demonstrations in Libya as far back as in July.46.13.56.75 (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not a civil war. In contrast to Libya, in which there were actually two camps of civilians (pro-Gaddafi and anti-Gaddafi) fighting each other - hence civil war - in Syria it's mostly the state army against rebel insurgent groups. So we should neither rename this article, nor create a separate "Syrian civil war" article. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

File:A Collage of Syrian Martyrs.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:A Collage of Syrian Martyrs.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Military conflict

Although not yet a civil war, the event is definitely a military conflict, and as such a new infobox is needed.--93.137.110.103 (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

See above section. --93.139.152.196 (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Belligerents Section

Organised the belligerents section, especially the one concerning the Pro-Assad Factions. I put the various elements into a more organised list, as well as added some which were missing - notably all the Iranian elemets helping the regime stay in power. Better still, a seperate section for "Notable Personalities" and one for the involved Belligerents should be made. It seems quite messy listing the top leaders on the same list as the various factions they use to fight for them. Besides, I think thats how most war pages are organised. Someone also seems to have a problem with the changes I am making. Please discuss here otherwise I will just revert the page. Peace. SaSH (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Shoes in anti al-Assad demonstration.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Shoes in anti al-Assad demonstration.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Opposition Flag Reversions

There's been a revert war going on re: whether the opposition to Assad uses the current (red-white-black) and former (green-white-black) flag, or just the former. Earlier broadcasts and photos generally showed the current flag in use within Syria, and the former outside. In the last couple of weeks, every protest showed in AP, Al Jazeera, and the American media have shown the pro-government side using the RWB flag, and the protesters using the GWB flag (see the Homs protests, and groups like the Free Syrian Army). Unless we current photos circulate showing a regular use of the RWB flag, I propose that it be agreed that the GWB flag is, as of now, the symbol of the anti-Assad resistance. Yahnatan (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. That's the flag used by both the SNC and the FSA. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Iranian Involvement

There is clear and proven Iranian involvement in this uprising - it is even stated and sourced later on in this very article. I'm sure most people even heard it on virtually all major media outlets. So who on Earth keep deleting the section on it in the info box? Even though that is infact more consistently proven than most the other groups' involvements. This vandalism seems to be the work of the many Persian Nationalists out their, as the section on the Mukhabarrat, Secret Police and other unsavoury involvements in the info box have been wholly untouched. Please keep all politics out of Wikipedia - the involvement of Persians on the side disliked by most people/the media does not reflect the enitire Persian people, and revisionism of facts is a disservice to everyone. I will revert this vandalism, and can someone please just copy/text the sources from elsewhere in the article, as I am not too good at that. Cheers. SaSH (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Iranian involvement is as clear as the Turkish and Gulf Arab involvement, which is even more direct, yet you don't call for their presence in the taxobox. Why? FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, this alleged Iranian involvement was being repeatedly added without providing any sources to back those claims. 93.142.238.180 (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

600 NTC soldiers in Syria.

RT made an announcement that Libya has sent 600 NTC soldiers into Syria. http://rt.com/news/libya-syria-fighters-smuggled-475/ Fluttershy !xmcuvg2MH 12:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Syrian civil war

Before anyone goes on a crazy rampage trying to change the name of the article to the 2011 Syrian civil war, in response to the UN now identifying it as one ( http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/12/2011121151646992237.html ), I propose we create a separate article called the 2011 Syrian civil war. The protesters are not the same as the Free Syrian army and thus we need to make a separate article entailing the Free Syrian Army's struggle against the Syrian government titled the 2011 Syrian civil war. We keep the 2011 Syrian uprising page as to entail the events of the protests. Sounds good? Sopher99 (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• the events throughout have included armed attacks and the events to come will no doubt still include protests. I don't think we should split off what historians are likely to treat as part and parcel. I also don't think a name change should be done until its clearer how the opposition and the government and other people and governments are describing whats happening. Just my two cents. Tiamut^{[User_talk:Tiamut|talk]]} 17:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. There is no need for a separate page. If the UN's characterization catches on in widespread usage, then I would support a name change; until then, the UN is just one of several agencies reacting to this situation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I am FOR creating a new page, there were many, many protests during the Libyan civil war, remember.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Goltak (talk

Lets create a new page after we definitively know what both the opposition and the government are calling this conflict. Sopher99 (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to wait for Assad to say anything. If we had waited for Gaddafi's opinion, the page for the Libyan Civil War wouldn't have appeared until it was nearly over. Fancyflyboy (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Every other conflict has developed from protests to a civil war or revolution. If you search any other uprising that has progressed, it leads to civil war or revolution. Why should this be any different? Why create a whole new article that will have the same info essentially? All that needs to be changed is the title and some wording. The protests are and will be part of the civil war. An uprising is a pre-civil war or pre-revolution. At the same time, we should also not be going based on the UN necessarily. The UN is not the be-all end-all authority and has its own agenda. I think we should wait until its termed in the media, or by scholars, as a civil war (even if this is because of the UN decision).--Metallurgist (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
• Update guys: the UN is calling it a civil war now. As soon as I get the green light (and log in using my real account) I'll update the page.

Source: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2011/12/2011121151646992237.html 141.214.17.17 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats why i started this discussion, if you look on top. Sopher99 (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Ah. Well, I'm divided on whether to use it generally or just for the FSA clashes, but I'm leaning more towards using it generally. I guess I support moving this section to "2011 Syrian Civil War". IntrospectiveReader (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree for a new article "2011 Syrian civil war" in addition to the existing article on "uprising". I think it is a civil war for about two months now (as per definition of civil war). The only question is when the protests and uprising became a civil war:

> The opposition consolidated in October (together with the Free Syrian Army), making a side in what can be related as a balanced two-sided conlict, when both parties claim the same state - hence a civil war.

> The newspapers and several state officials related this conflict as civil war since November, most notably the Russian officials.

> The UN began calling it a civil war since today (December 1).

That is it for now.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm willing to help create such a page when I have time; I'll take some ideas off of the 2011 Libyan Civil War page. Any sources to help add to the content would be greatly appreciated. IntrospectiveReader (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think it would be a mistake to make a separate page for the civil war. Think about how this event is going to be viewed historically. Are we really going to invent an artificial distinction between the protests and the clashes? Or an artificial "start date" for the civil war distinct from the beginning of the uprising, which some sources claim has been partly characterized by clashes since the outset and virtually all sources report has seen the use of violence in some form or another? Think about it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, we shouldn't vote on this until we definitively know what the SNC and the Syrian government are calling the conflict.Sopher99 (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Why should we care? During the Libyan civil war neither NTC, nor Gaddafi administration called it civil war with both sides claiming to be fighting small pockets of local enemy resistance supported by huge number of mercanaries (just see the official announcments - Musa Ibrahim was talking about army fighting Al Queda while Younis was talking about fighting army of subsaharan mercenaries). In civil war no side wants to accept that what they are fighting is their own population which holds another points of view and so when sources start calling it civil war (they did) we should rename the page according to it just as we did with Libyan Uprising page since the initial Uprising was a pretex to the civil war in which Syria is right now, we cant separate these incidents as something that isnt intertwined.EllsworthSK (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

@Kudzu: sure, I guess we can move this to "Civil War" instead of "Uprising. @Sopher: I don't think it will be adressed by either side, especially by the Assad govt., as they stick to their claim of "armed terrorists" being the reason for the protests. Either way, when the UN says something's a civil war, isn't it most likely that the event has been a civil war for a while? IntrospectiveReader (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how SNC and Assad's rule relate to the conflict, as wikipedia should reflect WP:COMMONNAME per majority of notable WP:RS.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You got a point that historically the conflict would be remembered as "Syrian civil war", but don't forget that for more than half a year (a notable period of time), the events were related as "protests" or "uprising". This period is much longer than the respective period in Libya, and there are plenty of articles in the media that reflect "protests" or "uprising" in Syria already. Therefore, I think we should create a new article "Syrian civil war", which would encompass both the events described as "protests/uprising" (current article on "uprising" would remain), while "Syrian civil war" will encompass a summary of the "uprising" phase. It is similar to "2003 Iraqi invasion" being part of the "Iraqi civil war", rather than entirely renaming and eliminating the "invasion" article.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the UN and the Russian government calling the Syria conflict a civil war, I've found recent articles by Xinhua and Reuters that also refer to the "Syrian civil war" and a number of other articles that also call the situation a civil war. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've heard the same from the BBC, this should be renamed. Fancyflyboy (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Greyshark's above statement on this issue. Sopher99 (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Now that a Senior UN official has called this a civil war, the media will quickly follow. It is time to change the article from Uprising to Civil War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.192.74.229 (talk) 11:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we change the article or create a new one, lets put that to a vote, in a few days after enough media sources call it a civi war. Sopher99 (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Another article would just create a mess. What goes where, etc. This page is trouble enough to maintain at a decent quality; adding another with some arbitrary distinction or dividing line that I don't think reliable sources support (are we really going to use the date of Pillay's report as the start date of the civil war, just because that's when a UN official first referred to it that way?) would make more work for us and more confusion for the general audience. I think we should change the name of this page, note that clashes were low-level and one-sided but not infrequent prior to the formation of the Free Syrian Army, and change to a military conflict infobox. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How about we literally split the page in half, the first half describing the protests and the government's response and the second half describing the eventual Syrian army mutiny and rebellion. Sopher99 (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we really need to split it in half; just rename the title, add the infoboxes, and move relevant sections and data to a new section labled "Course of the war" or something similar. IntrospectiveReader (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources just don't support a split. I would argue that fighting reliably began with resistance in the Syrian North when the army conducted its push against the Turkish border, and some sources indicated some sort of low-level, possibly Islamist insurgency in the northeast even prior to that. There's no clear date when the civil war Pillay posits "began" as distinct from the general uprising. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of my point of view (uprising and civil war both being notable), it seems to me that for technical reasons it will be rather simplier just to rename to "Syrian civil war", though mentioning that first phase of the conflict (from March till November) was an uprising. Anyway the sources still have not consilidated in the naming as "civil war", so not yet.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm fine with creating a new page entitled "Syrian Civil War" once the conflict escalates to the level it was at in 2011 Libyan Civil War where armed insurgents actually gained control over large sections of the country, or if the term "civil war" becomes ubiquitous among mainstream media outlets. For now, I think referring to it as an uprising is sufficient. Just my two cents, though. If people see it differently, then I'm fine with having a separate article relating to the conflict between the Assad regime and the Free Syrian Army. Master&Expert (Talk) 12:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Map of Situation

This image would follow the Libyan Civil War file in svg format, but for the Syrian Uprising/Civil War. Do we add it? --Spesh531, My talk, and External links 03:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No we don't add it.

1 - It would confuse people into thinking it represents which city "supports" assad or not.

2 - The FSA does not have control over any city yet.

3 - Deir Ezzor is not a loyalist city

Once cities themselves declare themselves under SNC control we will start adding map. Sopher99 (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Cities don't "declare" anything. FSA or other group of opposition might do that. Till then of course such map is not needed.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction

One of the goals listed on the box to the top right it says "Recognition of Kurdish rights" but later on the article it talks about how the uprising is mostly limited to Arab regions while Kurds are staying silent. How come the recognition of Kurdic rights are is a major goal of an uprising Kurds do not participate in? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Kurds are staying silent? One of the biggest demonstrations were in Syrian Kurdistan. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Kurds are indeed staying silent, and are very suspicious about the Turkish endorsed opposition. http://www.npr.org/2011/11/16/142387417/new-republic-will-kurds-determine-syrias-fate FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

@EllsworthSK, well, the article suggest that they don't: "Kurds have participated in the uprising in much smaller numbers than their Syrian Arab counterparts."

@FunkMonk, you introduced yet an other contradiction because later on in the article it cites Kurds who say that Turkey haven't been discriminating against Syrian Turks about representation. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That goes without saying as they represent 10 percent of population, while sunnis represent 75. As for not protesting I would refer you to protests in Qamishli or this.EllsworthSK (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Then the article clearly suggests that Kurds are protesting less than Arabs percentage-wise, not quantity-wise. The article contradicts itself. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Opposition Factions and Flags

Okay since I'm more or about to be involved in a edit war at this rate, my question is what is the threshold a faction has to be before it is included separately in the infobox, rather than simply swept under the rug as one could say under 'Other opposition groups'? Another is the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change, the wikipage for the Syrian National Council purports it to be the "other main Syrian opposition coalition", yet it is excluded from their own mention, where as the Syrian Revolution General Commission is listed separately.

Meanwhile on the topic of flags, I do not understand why it is apparently not allowed to list the Syrian National Council under the current Syrian flag, when they are still using it for all official purposes, as well as the National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change, until they adopt the Green-white-black flag I'm afraid to keep the article non-biased we need to list them under the respective flags they have adopted for official purposes --Thegunkid (talk) 09:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Those factions should be mentioned instead of removing them from the infobox and saying that they are part of the "other opposition groups". Also, it would be nice to have an article for Pioneering Revolutionist Party of Syria. Could you create it? --93.142.200.63 (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No because I do not author articles, I only contribute --Thegunkid (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War or Syrian uprising

I think the right designation should be civil war? --Josef2610 (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I oppose such a renaming. Civil wars involve opposing factions taking and/or defending control of part of a country. The insurgents in Syria do not control any territory, they're just fighting the military. This is an uprising, not a civil war. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Full Protection Article

If this article has become 2011 Syrian Civil War, then I think its best this article must be protected just like what we did to the Libyan article to prevent more further vandalism. 60.49.56.180 (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It hasn't become 2011 Syrian Civil War, though. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"The uprising, which the United Nations considers a civil war"

I have removed the above statement from the article, as it is false. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has merely said: "The Syrian authorities' continual ruthless repression, if not stopped now, can drive the country into a full-fledged civil war". [5] She didn't say that the UN already consider the situation to constitute a civil war. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)