Talk:Syrian civil war

Deletion

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Syrian protests

Why put this here?--BabbaQ (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's part of the protests going on in the middle east currently. I don't think it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trakrecord (talk • contribs) 02:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Against - no reason to delete this. It's important to give each country a page for protests. --Smart30 (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has guidelines for article inclusion, please read WP:NOTABILITY, WP:EVENT, WP:NOTNEWS. Anyway, the main discussion is over here, you're welcome to join. Yazan (talk) 08:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

From the main article

• Please place this info in the article for improvement =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

On 26 January 2011, Hasan Ali Akleh from Al-Hasakah poured gasoline and burned himself in the same way as Mohamed Bouazizi. According to eyewitnesses, the action was "a protest against the Syrian government". On 29 January 2011, news channel Al Arabiya reported that Internet connection was cut off, that was quickly denied by official sources. On 28 January 2011, a demonstration was held in Ar-Raqqah during the evening, in protest against the killing of two soldiers of Kurdish descent.

On 31 January 2011, the Wall Street Journal ran an exclusive interview with Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, in which he said it's time to reform. In a comment on the protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Yemen, he said a "new era" is coming to the Middle East, and that Arab rulers would need to do more to accommodate their people's rising political and economic aspirations.

On 3 February another “Day of rage” was called for in Syria from 4–5 February on social media sites Facebook and Twitter. Protesters demand reform in the government, however most protests so far have remained outside of Syria and have been small. Protests were also scheduled for 5 February in front of the parliament in Damascus and at Syrian embassies internationally. The planned protests had been named "Day of Rage." The only known action took place on 5 February, where hundreds of protesters in Al-Hasakah participated in a mass demonstration, calling for the President's departure. Syrian authorities have arrested dozens and the demonstration was triggered quickly. President Bashar al-Assad has declared that his state is immune from the kinds of mass protests taking place in Egypt. Al Jazeera also reported plans to increase security for the planned "days of rage." Days before the planned protests, Syrian authorities arrested several political activists, such as businessman Ghassan al-Najar, leader of the Islamic Democratic movement, the writer Ali al-Abdallah, Abbas Abbas, from Syrian Communist Party and several other political personalities of Kurdish backgrounds, such as Adnan Mustafa. Suhair Atassi, who runs the banned Jamal Atassi Forum, called for political reforms and the reinstatement of civil rights, as well as an end to the emergency law in place since 1963. However, no protests occurred on either date. Though internet services were said to have been curbed, Facebook and Youtube were reported to have been restored on 8 February. Suggestions were made that easing the ban could be a way to track activists. After the failure of attempts to a "day of rage," Al Jazeera called the country "a kingdom of silence" and identified key factors for stability within Syria as being strict security measures, the popularity of President Bashar al-Assad, and fears of potential sectarian violence in the aftermath of a government ouster (akin to neighbouring Iraq).

On 14 February, blogger and student Tal al-Mallohi was sentenced to five years in prison for spying for the United States. Washington denied these allegations and asked for the release Tal immediately. 15 February, under pressure from human rights organizations, the Syrian government released Ghassan al-Najjar, a "veteran Islamist activist" after he went on hunger strike following his arrest for calling for mass protests. 16 February, regime critic and director of the Organisation for Democracy and Freedom in Syria (ODFS) Ribal al-Assad, the son of Rifaat al-Assad and cousin to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad held a press conference in London, where he made it clear that he "does not want to see a Syrian revolution, but a peaceful change of power".

On 17 February, a fight took place in central Damascus, between a shop owner and traffic police. Everything took a new turn when three police officers began attacking the man and beat him severely. Several people gathered around and blocked the road, while shouting "the Syrian people will not be pushed down". An eyewitness estimated the number to more than 1,500 demonstrators. Secret police officers arrived quickly to the scene along with several "big names" and finally Minister of the Interior who scared away the demonstrators. The minister took the shop owner in his car and promised to investigate what had happened. A couple of hours later, several video versions were posted on YouTube.

On 19 February, several Syrian websites reported widespread anti-government graffiti across Damascus and other major cities. Syrian security police have arrested Fares Serawan days after the demonstration to his participation. On 21 February, blogger Ahmad Abu al-Khair was reportedly arrested by Syrian security forces early Sunday morning. Security police have arrested dozens of Kurds near Damascus, and in preparation for a massive uprising, the al-Baath party sent 180,000 additional soldiers to support the security forces after a new wave of graffiti appeared with anti-regime messages. The security forces have gone into schools and questioned students and requested their email addresses.

On 22 February, dozens of people gathered outside the Libyan embassy in Damascus to protest against the Libyan regime and wanted the ambassador to resign. Despite the peaceful message, there were several security officers on site. Everything took a new turn when the protesters started shouting "Corrupt, he who strikes his people", which created nervousness among the security forces who immediately asked people to leave to their homes. On 23 February, attempted a professor at the highly screened University of Damascus start a revolt from within the University facilities, but he was met quickly by security police officers who beat him bloody while screaming at him "Do you want to teach? First, learn that al-Assad family are your masters, you child of a whore". The professor was thereafter taken by intelligence men. A short video from the event spread to different websites. A similar video showing the torture of Syrian officers is widely used in social media where participants require a revolution in Syria.

On 24 February, a new date for a Syrian "day of rage" was announced on March 15 under the name "the Syrian uprising."

"Syrian women protest price hikes"

Here is a source that talks about different protests, including anti-government graffiti: [3] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It's started for real

Thousands in the streets on March 19th. Ericl (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Involvement in Libya

I think the parts regarding Syria's involvement in the Libyan conflict should have their own (sub)section, as they seem marginally related to the protests - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Alewi

I think it is important to say, that the Assad-family is of Alevi/Alawi-faith. The Alewis are only in the Mediterranean provinces in the majority. They dominate the armed forces. The majority of the whole country are of course Sunni muslims. Thus a small group of heterodox Shi'ites dominate a Sunni majority.--90.187.81.159 (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Might be relevant, but needs a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.246 (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

They just took it up a notch

The Syrian government fired the provincial governor of the province where the demonstrations were taking place. This is the biggest concession in modern Syrian history.Ericl (talk) 20:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Haurani identity

It would be interesting to consider how much Hauranis may also be asking for local self-government within the Syrian state (i.e. NOT in any way separatism, but for the ability to run local matters themselves). I carefully write that this is not an attempt to advocate such a step, just an enquiry as to whether this is happening; if so, it would be necessary to include a reference in the article. Rif Winfield (talk) 09:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Why open this subject without any source that suggests that? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

My question was to ascertain whether there is any basis for this. Rif Winfield (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

PNG vs SVG

Which one do you guys think should be used?

PNG:

SVG:

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

PNG looks sharper, on my screen at least. Are there any technical reasons why one format is better than another e.g. compatability with different browsers?Rangoon11 (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Everything (except text) looks better with SVG for me, and SVG can easily be edited by anyone, this is not the case with PNG.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

What's the sources for that map? Also, some protests are pro-regime, be careful not to confuse the two. FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Mixed sources in the article. If there is something wrong, make a note here and ill change it. The image is only for anti-regime protests. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The sources used should be stated in the picture description on Commons then. FunkMonk (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Both versions look really good. :) I'm surprised the text varies so much - can the SVG version's text be bolded first? Regardless, imo easy-edit trumps just about everything. Flatterworld (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

In both pictures, the names for the city's/towns are bolded, while the "protest/protests and deaths" are not. Although it does not look like that in the SVG file. If you zoom in on the picture you will see:[4] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Casualties vs. deaths

I corrected the total deaths in the infobox, based on Reuters. No one really knows, but in various news accounts I'm seeing 'casualties' apparently confused with 'deaths'. 'Casualties' includes both killed and injured. There are likely some translation issues, and also some multiple-counting, so it's important to stick to the most reliable sources and their most current totals. (The latest AP reports agree with Reuters, stressing 'unconfirmed reports' even of that estimate.) Flatterworld (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Amnesty International say 55 have died.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I just came here to post that. :-) I updated it with with 27 March numbers. I think giving the range, along with the most reliable source's estimate, is the right idea. That shows how widely the sources diverge, along with the most likely number. AI has had experience in estimating these things, I expect. The assumptions is that almost all the dead are protesters, and I'm not sure that's true either. It's going to be awhile before anyone is really sure. Flatterworld (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, apparently the goal now is to use the highest numbers possible, ignoring all 'reliable sources'. Certainly not encyclopedic, bu that's clearly not your goal, is it? Or do you think all 'reliable sources' are so incredibly stupid that they shouldn't even be mentioned? Flatterworld (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Alleged Hezbollah & IRGC involvement

According to some media outlets Hezbollah and the Iranian revolutionary guards corp are involved in suppressing the protests:

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2011/me_iran0311_03_21.asp

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=213975

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4047276,00.html.

Do these articles have a NPOV so that we can use them, or should they be ignored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dms77 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I would wait until it is confirmed by uninvolved parties, so far only opposition figures are cited, not independent observers. FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Emergency law

The source here says: "Syria lifts emergency rule" [5], but no other sources have reported about this, only that the government had said that they were considering to lift it. If it were true that it already was lifted, then more sources would have reported about it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-27/u-s-won-t-intervene-in-syria-unrest-clinton-says-on-cbs.html FunkMonk (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything there about that the EL has been lifted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It has not been lifted. They just announced the fact that it will be lifted soon, maybe during this week. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments made by Sen. Joe Lieberman

Senator Joe Lieberman raised the possibility Sunday of U.S. military involvement in Syria if President Bashar Al-Assad massacres his people.

He stated that: “If Assad does what Qadhafi was doing, which is to threaten to go house to house and kill anybody who’s not on his side, there’s a precedent now that the world community has set in Libya, and it’s the right one,” And that: “We’re not going to stand by and allow this Assad to slaughter his people like his father did years ago.”

• http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/27/lieberman-suggests-fly-zone-option-syria-violence-escalates/
• http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/27/lieberman-libya-mission-sets-precedent/

Where do we place this in the article?

Dms77 (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

In reactions, obviously. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Wherever placed, it needs to make clear that Lieberman was making reference was to the 1982 Hama massacre. Rif Winfield (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

29 March breaking news

until I find a full story on the issue of the resignation of the government I have cited the breaking news scroll bar on the main page of the Jazeera English website Matthew 13:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew.Dimashki (talk • contribs)

I found one (Al-Jazeera article) and modified the ref - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Great thank you :) Matthew 13:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Clinton rules out U.S. intervention

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated that the U.S. will not intervene in Syria like it did in Libya :

• http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/27/ftn/main20047627.shtml

Dms77 (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

SYNTH in Background→Early section

The Background:Early section feels like WP:SYNTH. Yes, it's reliably sourced and devoid of POV, but on what basis has it been established that any of what's written there is the background against which the protests against the Assad regime have broken out? It covers about four decades between 1963 and 2004, and there's stuff about the Ba'ath party's rise to power, Israel, and friction with the Kurds – but none of it is attributed to a WP:RS as the background to the protests. With the exception of one, all the sources are from years ago.—Biosketch (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd concur. I have no doubt that those elements played some part, but the implication is that they were causes, without reference to link them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.98 (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• There are a number of articles that discuss the same background in discussing the protests. This simply follows the RSs. But Bio's point is correct, in that it needed more in terms of refs to assure the causal observer that that was the case. I've therefore supplied some refs, along those lines. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Better" map

On the 20th, this map was replaced as ":better" in the edit summary. However, the sources I have seen have a map very similar to it. Two of these include CNN and The Economist. Both do not show the Golan Heights as being part of Syria.

So some quick background for those not aware. The editor who made the change has done similar changes on multiple articles. I disagree for the most part but a centralized discussion didn't pan out so it is now on individual pages. 2 things to consider:

• The occupation is considered illegal by most of the international community.
• Reality is that it functions as part of Israel.

So I propose readding the map (I am actually going to do it per BRD). However, if someone wants to add it in stripes to show that it is disputed then I think that is great. Note that the map I am readding does show the disputed border which means it is more NPOV than the current map. The current map shows Wikipedia taking a side in the dispute and is less factually clear. Cptnono (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Follow up: Waited a bit and made the change. BRD applies whether I wait 40 hours or 40. But I did misspeak up above: The map I replaced did show the disputed line. It was hard to see with the writing on it but at least that was right. But take it to the next NPOV level and slash it. Still not factually accurate with just the dashed border so I hope someone does fix it. Either way, this map is better and more inline with secondary sources (NOT OR OF THEM) and how those secondary sources discuss the topic.Cptnono (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your pov and non-neutral edit for several reasons. You say Economsit and CNN maps you have seen do not show GH as part of Syria. But these are not my sources for how the map looks like. These are my sources for that: International view: p23, UN map following the IC:[6] CIA maps following the IC: Syria:[7][8], CIA Israel:[9], CIA Middle East: [10], CIA Golan: [11][12][13].

The map you added does not show Syrias international border and does not show it as part of Syria, therefor violates npov. The map I made follows the international view, shows the ceasefire line and international border. At a discussion at Rujm el hiri, neither you are anyone else has brought one single policy based argument there against the neutral map that is similar to this. The map you are supporting:[14], is also obsolete as it is also not showing all citys where teher has been protests and deaths, and have Homs in the wrong place. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Btw, this CNN video:[15], shows the same color for Golan as the rest of Syria, same thing with this The Economist article: [16] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Replacing an SVG with an outdated JPG is not productive. If you have an issue with the map that is agreed, I can make edits to the vector image. NikNaks _{talk - gallery - commons} 09:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

He wants to violate npov in the map as he has done at other articles. He has not brought one single policy based argument for his pov and non neutral edits at other articles, and he wants to do the same thing here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Having done some digging, it seems a similar edit to the image has already been reverted after it was apparently agreed at the Admins' noticeboard that the edit violates NPOV. I don't think this requires discussion here. My mistake. NikNaks _{talk - gallery - commons} 10:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

NikNaks93 (talk · contribs), or anyone, can you copy the link to that noticeboard discussion for the benefit of less familiar contributors? If I understand correctly, both maps are NPOV violations because the international community itself acknowledges two incompatible realities – one the reality of who occupies the territory, the other the reality of who has sovereign political rights over it. Lonely Planet Israel, for example, would be doing its readers a disservice if it ignored the internationally-acknowledged Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights. Its map is a paragon of NPOV because it assigns the Golan Heights to neither country, i.e. it favors neither of the international community's approaches to the issue. That should be the map that we use as well: solid lines where there are mutually agreed-upon borders, and dotted lines where the border dispute between the countries has yet to be resolved. (Or stripes could accomplish the same thing.)—Biosketch (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at the noticeboard was that both versions of any map are uploaded as separate files, and not on top of each other. Not really, purpose of the map is to show the country of Syria, which this map does. It follows the international view per Wikipedia policy npov and it shows the ceasefire line (i.e. occupied). The map also has lots of text and a dot on the GH, so to ad stripes would make it even more murky. Your view of what npov is in regards to Lonely planet is not in accordance with npov policy as shown repeatedly at Rujm el hiri talkpage. Do you have any policy based arguments? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but a request was made for a link to the noticeboard discussion NikNaks93 (talk · contribs) cited above. It would be more helpful to have access to that discussion directly than to hear a summary of it through other users. Also, where is Wikipedia's NPOV policy that is claimed to apply to this issue? If it's WP:NPOV, then the Lonely Planet Israel map is still the ultimate NPOV representation.—Biosketch (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Both versions of any map... Npov, due and undue weight: [17]. How is the map at Lonely planet following npov? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness, that noticeboard discussion was at Wikicommons, involved only half a dozen users, and appears to have been closed the day after it was started. I haven't been on Wikipedia long enough to know, but it would surprise me to hear that a discussion of that nature could be said to have jurisdiction over the map disputes here on Wikipedia. When NikNaks93 (talk · contribs) mentioned a noticeboard discussion, the impression I had was of a Wikipedia noticeboard like WP:NPOVN or something of that caliber. Wikipedia policy at WP:NPOV favors the Lonely Planet map because it doesn't choose between one of two approaches to the dispute but rather finds a way to represent both. Showing the Golan in Syria would be arbitrarily preferring the IC's position that the Golan legally belongs to Syria. Showing the Golan in Israel would be arbitrarily preferring the IC's position that Israel is the occupying power in the Golan. Why should one position be preferred over the other? The answer is, there is no reason for Wikipedia to prefer one position over the other. And there's a perfectly viable alternative to it: show the Golan as being neither in Israel nor in Syria. That way both of the IC's positions are represented equally, which is how WP:NPOV instructs us to act.—Biosketch (talk) 15:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

And the agreement is about commons where the map is. It has nothing to do with "jurisdiction over the map disputes", it has to do with both versions of any map are uploaded separately there. What you are bringing up has been discussed before at other talkpages, see the quote here from npov:[18]. This is the part of the npov policy that shows how to handle due and undue weight, which is directly connected for this issue. You said: "Wikipedia policy at WP:NPOV favors the Lonely Planet map because it doesn't choose between one of two approaches to the dispute but rather finds a way to represent both.", no the map doesn't represent both approaches, and the npov policy doesn't say that a map should represent the vast majority and the extreme minority approach. That Israel is the occupying power does not mean "Golan in Israel". You said:"Why should one position be preferred over the other?" If you read the policy, you would know that: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.". Several people of the usual crowd have been given the option to apply the same reasoning they want (and you want) to other articles, and they haven't. "show the Golan as being neither in Israel nor in Syria. That way both of the IC's positions are represented equally, which is how WP:NPOV instructs us to act" The IC position is not that "Golan as being neither in Israel nor in Syria", so that wouldn't represent the IC equally. This is not how WP:NPOV instructs us to act as can be seen from the quote above.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

But there is universal consensus that Israel captured the Golan Heights from Syria in 1967 and has been occupying them ever since. That is not "the view of a significant minority" – it is the view of every reliable source on the planet. This is why the world is demanding that Israel withdraw from the Golan – because they acknowledge that it's in Israel even though it shouldn't be. And it still hasn't been made clear whether the Wikicommons decision is legally binding or not vis-a-vis Wikipedia articles.—Biosketch (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Israel occupying it does not mean Golan "is" or "is in" Israel. As I said before, the map shows the ceasefire line (i.e. occupied). The map also has lots of text and a dot on the GH, so to ad stripes would make it even more murky. And in the case of Cptnano, he wouldn't be satisfied with stripes, as he supports not following npov; he wants the same color as the rest of Syria removed, and removal of the international border [19]. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly be satisfied with stripes. Please read my comment up above. The variables are much different and you should be able to understand that without mis-characterizing my comment. NPOV is policy. The map is not neutral. It needs to be made NPOV or it needs to be removed.Cptnono (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that you would be satisfied with the map exactly like it is now with the color and international border, but only that I ad stripes? If the map is not neutral, how come not you or anyone else have brought one single policy based argument showing its not neutral? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The area should have a dashed border on both sides and it should have stripes. I am perfectly happy if both are very thin as to not draw the eye too far away from the content under the scope of this article. The reason this map is so much different than the other one is because the article is about Syria (not the disputed territory or something in that disputed territory) so it makes sense that Syria is the center of the image.Cptnono (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Its side to the right is not a border, its a ceasefire line. Its side to the left is the international boundary, a difference must be there between them because they are not the same.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. As long as the land within the disputed area has dashes instead of completed lines and striped coloring instead of full highlighting it is fine by me.Cptnono (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No land will have dashes, the land will have stripes, the border and ceasfire line will be exactly as they are now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say land should have dashes. Instead of complete lines around the disputed area it should be dashed lines. If it is three dashed lines then that is fine by me. Cptnono (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I already said above that the lines are not the same. The international boundary should therefore not be the same as the ceasefire line. The international boundary line can stay like it is now as having something there different from the lines of other country's would not present the line as an international boundary. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

As long as there are three dashed lines I don't care if one of them has different spacing. Two would be just as well but if you feel the need to have a third in then it is fine by me. I thought I made that clear. Are you assuming I just want to argue?Cptnono (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I already said above that having the international boundary line with Israel as something else then the boundary lines of other countries would not present the line as what it is. So I'm not going to change that line. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not ask you to. Will you add the stripes and make a third dashed line or not?Cptnono (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Been experimenting with the software, I can ad stripes manually I think. Not sure exactly what you are referring to with the "third dashed line", what line is this? where will it be located? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing of that software so the work is appreciated. I assume a dashed line will be needed on the western edge since it is a boundary that is in dispute. "Line of control" and "disputed boundaries" are pretty common in atlases. Unfortunately we have this whole NPOV thing to worry about.Cptnono (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If a map would show Israels boundary disputes as stripes, then all lines around all of Israel would be striped. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I'm quite certain everyone recognizes the line to which Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 as the border between the two countries. Same goes for Jordan ever since the kingdom's treaty with Israel. I remember hearing there's some minor issue with the border with Egypt, but that border too is basically uncontested. So where is "all lines around all of Israel would be striped" coming from?—Biosketch (talk) 12:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course not everyone, as there are many countries who do not recognize Israel itself and who call the area Palestine. Furthermore, Hezbollah wants Israel to withdraw from the Seven Lebanese Villages that are located south of the international border. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Can someone remove the Aleppo city mark from the map? As the town did not witness any act of protest.--Kevorkmail (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes it did: [20] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No, did not.--Kevorkmail (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Really, SD? We are this close to a solution and you now want to botch it up? The GOlan Heights is disputed. Either make the map or I am removing it. Golan Heights can be striped. You can have your two lines dashed (even though it is not needed since only the farthest disputed lines of control need to be dashed. So improve the map or not. Either way, I am removing the "better" map you recently added.Cptnono (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The stripes and ceasefire line would show that its occupied. You wanted the international boundary dashed because you say it is disputed, but all of Israel is disputed, so by following your own argument, then you would accept the entire line around all of Israel to be dashed. I don't see any consensus here to remove the map. Many CIA maps show the lines of the country's there is no peace agreement with as striped. For this image, I can make the line between Israel and the two countries with no peace agreement striped, which would be Syria and Lebanon.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I am very disappointed that ti has come to adding tags. This is especially true since this discussion is an easy enough fix and is barely related. However, we cannot push one agenda no matter how unrelated it is. IU see that many tags have made their way back on to articles regarding maps in the area so this appears to be the best way to handle it. Aleppo also appears to be disputed just above.Cptnono (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You did not reply to my suggestion above. Furthermore the map here as it is, is neutral as it follows the worldview and several reliable maps, so no policy based reasons has been provided by you justifying the tags you added. If you are refferning to me adding tags at other articles, then policy based reasons has been provided for them. Furthermore, there is no dispute about Aleppo, as I showed a source showing that protests has occurred there, and no evidence was provided that it didn't, saying "no" is not a real argument. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge the early sections

I think we should merge and summarise parts from 26 january to 13 march, real protests began on 15 march. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyHaBi (talk • contribs) 09:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

No. Not a good suggestion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As for me, 20 young men chanting support for Egypt's uprising and 200 people gathering in front of the Libyan Embassy in Damascus is nice but not anti-governement protests...
1500 or 2000 people chanting against police and corruption is nice but not really a protest against the regime.
That were signs that protests may erupt in Syria, but those protests began on 15 march and then heated up. SyHaBi (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Summary of deaths in Syria

Date	City	Deaths	Corrections
2011-01-26	• Al-Hasakah: Self-immolation (1)	1
2011-03-15	• Unspecified: At least (1+)	1+
2011-03-18	• Daraa: Demonstrators (6)	6
2011-03-20	• Daraa: Demonstrator (1)	1
2011-03-21	• Daraa: 11-year-old boy (1)  • Daraa: At least (1+)	2+
2011-03-23	• Daraa: Demonstrators (15)	15	6-106+ to be added
2011-03-25	• Daraa: On way to demonstration (17-20)  • Daraa: near Omari Mosque (40)  • Latakia: (1-4)  • Homs: (1-25)  • Tafas: (3)  • Damascus: (3)  • Unspecified: (0-3)	65-98
2011-03-27	• Latakia: Demonstrators (12)	12
2011-03-30	• Daraa: Demonstrators (5)	5
2011-03-31	• Latakia: Demonstrators (25)	25
2011-04-01	• Daraa: Demonstrator (1)  • Damascus: Demonstrators in Douma (4)  • Enkhel: Military checkpoint (10)	15	25+ to be reduced
2011-04-04	• Latakia: Prisoners (8)	8
2011-04-05	• Damascus: Policemen (2)  • Kafar Batna: (15)	17
2011-04-08	• Daraa: Demonstrators (27)  • Daraa: Policemen (19)  • Damascus: Harasta (2)  • Unspecified: (0-37)	48-85	2 to be reduced
2011-04-09	• Daraa: Demonstrators (23)  • Unspecified: At least (1+)	24+
2011-04-10	• Daraa: Demonstrators (26)  • Homs: in Teldo (20)  • Banias: (1)	47
Total death toll:	271–441+ (ongoing)

Highest official number of killed is 250.[21]

References

And the reason why this is double the total estimate of every reliable source? Flatterworld (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

This calculation is based on a combination of news mainly from official sources of the Syrian Revolution website in context with articles from verified sources that major news agencies, these are adjusted continuously to the right under "Corrections" column. When an official source such as Amnesty International gives its estimate we make adjustments along with that. The lowest figure is the strict minimum and the maximum is much higher as you may get duplicates. If we look at the minimum calculation on 8th of April 2011, we see that the difference is as little as two deaths. The more official reports coming out, the more legitimate figures will be published. tonemgub2010 (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources vs ... rumor

I agree w/Flatterworld's recent edit summary that "We don't post conspiracy theories and 'secret documents' as fact." Let's all stick with reliable sources. Of course -- should the RSs report on such theories and documents, they would be appropriate for the article. Until then, however -- not. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems like they have[22] actually, but it is still pretty dubious. FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Reporting something is NOT the same as claiming it's true. The Guardian article, for example (please read the whole article, though), specifically said: "Violence in the port cities of Banias and Latakia has become increasingly messy as locals report the involvement of pro-government thugs and private militias." That's NOT the same as "the government" or "the army". Looks to me as if some are skimming articles, picking up a few 'incendiary' phrases here and there, and posting the resulting conflation. I don't know if that's intentional or not, but we are an encyclopedia, not a tabloid or rumor mill. All these articles need to be read carefully and with thought before "assuming" something is being reported as fact. What I removed reminded me of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. iow, faked and pure propaganda. It's very difficult to get the facts when most sources are unknown and their motives unclear, so we need to emphasize that's the current situation. Flatterworld (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Tags

Hi ... for my part, I don't see any reason to continue to sully this article with the two existing tags. Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 05:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

How about you see the ongoing discussion up above. Pretty simple fix.Cptnono (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

No reason for the tags has been provided in discussions above. Looks like "tit for tat" on Cptnonos part as a reply to me adding tags to other articles. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

SD -- maybe you two can go off-line and find a way to resolve any disagreements, and de-tag as many of those articles as can properly be de-tagged? Just a suggestion.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I added the more usual 'current' tag. imo the other two tags could be removed. 'Current' should probably add or imply "read at your risk, accompanied by a generous amount of salt". I don't think that's limited to this 'current event' article. As a suggestion, rather than trying to find a 'consensus' it's better to include multiple views with the caveat that the facts are currently unclear. As I recommended on the casualty/death counts, better to give a range along with the 'most likely' number of the most reliable source. Which, I note, was ignored. Keep over-egging the pudding and no one's going to believe a word of this article. Flatterworld (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ten Years vs Eleven Years

I don't care much which it is, but can someone conform the 10 years vs. 11 years references at the beginning of the article? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Specifically ... "... his son President Bashar al-Assad has now been in office for the past 10 years....

After the 1970 Revolution, President Hafez al-Assad led Syria for 30 years, banning any opposing political party and any opposition candidate in any election. He was followed as President by his son, Bashar al-Assad, for the past 11 years"--Epeefleche (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Better to just say since 2000, so it doesn't have to be updated every year.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Article size

The article is now up to 126,183 bytes. Time for people to start considering how to break off a sub-article, to keep this to an appropriate (generally, below 100K bytes) size.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, how about breaking out a separate timeline article? This is an approach which has been followed on a few similar articles. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Anything that makes sense works for me. Could you link to an example? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Look at the Libyan Civil War 2011 article. It's pretty much the closet article to this one. 86.134.185.131 (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Con Coughlin article

I have deleted the reference to the Con Coughlin article. He is not arguing for a no-fly zone over Syria and Yemen. Instead he is stating that Syria and Yemen are equally entitled to a no-fly zone as Libya. However, since the west does not have the military capacity to enforce all of these zones, then it should think again before hastily imposing no-fly zones. This, I believe is his argument.

Reinstated - cited and relevant and should not have been deleted. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Picture on Flickr

This set has 24 pictures. Hope it helps :D -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed material

I removed two large sections from the article - both uneccessary additions of an editorial nature. Readers are welcome to review my edits. -161