Talk:Syrian civil war

Archives
Topical archives
Israel in the infobox DRN Kurds in the infobox Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Syrian civil war

Section 'Video footage'

While we’re all striving to make a relevant Wikipedia, especially in this case a relevant article about this Syrian (civil) war, and while a majority of us apparently consider this article (232,000 bytes) already rather long or very long or too long or unconveniently or undesirably long, I was struck last month by section 8 entitled: ‘Video footage’. It seemed, and still seems, rather trivial and (therefore) non-essential or even non-encyclopedic to me. Therefore I removed the section while trying to give my arguments, on 19April2014,9:47: (“sorry,this is all non-encyclopedic.Okay 'hundreds millions views',so what?Okay YouTube,'unprecedented': so what? Okay 'videos help documenting': do we need an encyclopedia to tell us that? It seems totally trivial,obvious”). One can ofcourse criticize the way I have formulated those arguments back in April, but I still can’t really see why this ‘information’ would be (very) relevant in this article. Immediately after my edit, it was reverted by mr/mrs Mezigue who doesn’t have more to say about it than: “It is of encyclopedic interest”. Are words too expensive down where he lives? Or does he not consider me deserving of a more serious, substantial, disputable answer, motivation? How relevant is it to write in this article that 100,000,000 people have viewed a video about this War? Could perhaps be relevant for an article on Videos, but why here? Are we also going to write in this article how many people have been watching television news bulletins about this war? How many people have been reading news papers about this war? How many people have talked about it to their wife, son, brother-in-law, plumber? Corriebertus (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with you, it can be moved to the media coverage article. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

None of the sections, nor subsections, of Syrian Civil War is titled 'media coverage'. You (dear FunkMonk) also don't present 'the media coverage article' as a wikilink. If such article 'media coverage' nevertheless exists (which is not obvious, yet), then why is it not properly incorporated into (I mean linked from) main article 'Syrian Civil War'? If such (presumed) article is supposed to be of any relevance to this war, it ought to be attainable via wikilink(s) out of this main article. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's this, all the way back from 2011: Syrian media coverage of the Syrian Civil War FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I just moved it to Media coverage of the Syrian Civil War to broaden the scope, then we can dump most of such information there instead of deleting it. There are a lotm fo media controversies that could be mentione dthere as well, for example Gay Girl in Damascus, Elizabeth O'Bagy, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarks and thinking, FunkMonk. I’ve read that article ‘Media coverage of the Syrian Civil War’: it does not (yet) look relevant enough to me to give it a (new) section in main article ‘Syrian Civil War’ (SCW). Perhaps, in time, when more important “media controversies” (as you say), or other important media issues, have been added to it, it can become advisable to give it a new section in SCW. I see no Wikipedia-logic in "dumping" this 'information' of section 8 'Video footage', that apparently, after 10 days discussion, nobody considers relevant in any way, into another Wiki-article. Therefore, in line with this discussion, I now remove section 8 ‘Video footage’ from the article ‘Syrian Civil War’. Corriebertus (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction, the Gay Girl in Damascus was not part of any "media controversies" - but a fully reported news story. A timely warning against media outlets taking YouTube videos and other 'information' at face value. A warning to double-check (FSA related) stories, and not report them as fact. Given this, I suggest a section titled:

A Gay Girl in Damascus and the stage-managing of the 'news'

92.20.242.92 (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Concerning Elizabeth O'Bagy, her story is both telling and interesting. For MSM reports that this Syrian 'expert' was sacked for lying about having a Ph.D. This was only days after her sexed-up report in the Wall Street Journal was used - by John Kerry at Congressional hearings - to improve the case for bombing Syria.

Responding to concerns about her close links with the FSA, O'Bagy claimed she never tried to conceal her ties with opposition groups and that she was not paid to advocate her views on Syria. "I'm not trying to trick America here," O'Bagy tweeted on September 7 2013. Then again, she did little to highlight any of this.

Given how this fits in with media management - perhaps Wikipedia should cover this story in greater detail?

92.20.242.92 (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Both of those cases have specific articles that could be expanded. But I don't understand why such media controversies aren't relevant in an article about, well, the media coverage, Corriebetus. FunkMonk (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Title changes ‘Siege of Daraa’ and ‘Siege of Homs’

On the talk pages of article ‘Siege of Daraa’ and of ‘Siege of Homs’ I have today started discussions, aiming to change the titles of those two articles, which I consider to be wrong, which I hereby bring to the attention of the visitors of also this page (SyrCivWar). To keep those two discussions concentrated on one page, please give your opinion on those issues on those mentioned talk pages in their sections Change of title: ‘Attack on Daraa’ and Change of title: ‘War in Homs’ or ‘Civil war in Homs’ or ‘Syrian Civil War in Homs’, where you will also find all my arguments (and perhaps those of others). Corriebertus (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Al-Abbas brigade

Can someone tell me how necessary it is to have the apparently inactive Liwa Abu al-Fadhal al-Abbas in the infobox? How significant are the group's contributions in combat? And how is it more unique than Hezbollah and the PFLP in the conflict? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

An update on the lead section

In the introduction one can read that "By July 2013, the Syrian government was in control of approximately 30-40% of the country's territory and 60% of the Syrian population". Would it be possible to update this information ? Thanks.--Kimdime (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Assad in May2011 releasing prisoners

On 7January2014,16:42, BoogaLouie added information in section 2.1 ('Protests, civil uprising, and defections (March–28 July 2011)') about Assad in May2011 releasing hundreds of political prisoners (which later was changed by someone into: releases in March–May2011). Considering that section to be presenting protests and uprising Jan–July2011, I wonder, what has that info on supposed releasing of prisoners to do with that subject? Can BoogaLouie, or someone else, explain that to me? Corriebertus (talk) 14:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_Civil_War&diff=589621906&oldid=589599284

The section is Uprising and civil war, and is about (among other things) the transformation of the Arab Spring protest into a civil war. The release of prisoners relates to the the development of the insurgents, specifically the current dominance of Islamists/Jihadist/Salafists in the insurgency. Here is a quote from the source I gave (Blanford, Nicholas (October 10, 2013). "Jihadis may want to kill Assad. But is he lucky to have them?". csmonitor.com. Retrieved 7 January 2014.)

Even the Assad regime is believed to have played a role in establishing a hard-line salafist presence within the armed opposition. In May 2011, when the rebellion was in its infancy, the Assad regime granted amnesty to political prisoners, releasing hundreds of them from jail, including members of the banned Muslim Brotherhood. The newly released Islamists went on to play leading roles in the armed opposition, including helping found Ahrar ash-Sham.

When Jabhat al-Nusra emerged on the scene in January 2012, it was widely dismissed by the Syrian opposition as a creation of Syrian intelligence. Since then, however, Jabhat al-Nusra has become one of the most effective rebel forces and has publicly declared its loyalty to Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The Syrian regime is nominally secular. But it has a long history of tacit cooperation with militant Islamist groups that on paper it should regard as mortal enemies. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

So, that information (release of prisoners) in section 2.1(Protests etc.,Jan–Jul2011) relates to (the) (supposed) development of (the) (specifically Islamist/Salafist) insurgents (as relevant party/parties in this Syrian conflict). In that case, that information should probably be placed in section 4 'Belligerents' (subsection 4.2 'Opposition' ? ), I suppose — but surely it should not stand in section 2, which recounts chronologically the actual concrete developments and events in these protests and uprising and war. (Arab Spring transforming into (this) civil war is, by the way, for the moment, only interpretation of Wiki editor(s) — until we’ve seen sources saying that; more on that issue, in the Talk section directly underneath.) Also, I don’t understand what is meant with ‘development of insurgents’, and still don’t understand what releasing of prisoners in March–May2011 has to do with ‘development of insurgents’. Corriebertus (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

still don’t understand what releasing of prisoners in March–May2011 has to do with ‘development of insurgents’.

Didn't you read this: The newly released Islamists went on to play leading roles in the armed opposition, including helping found Ahrar ash-Sham. --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You aren't seriously suggesting that I'd say "I don't understand..." about something I would not have read!? Of course I've read your statement(7Jan2014): "...released ...prisoners...including Islamists, some of whom went on to play leading roles in the armed opposition, such as Ahrar ash-Sham". Anyway, the main point I wanted to make (because I'm trying to clean up and improve section 2.1) is: this portion of information belongs in section 4, because it relates to developments within a (belligerent) party, while section 2 is relating on the developments of the uprising and protests and war itself. But even if you kindly replace it into section 4, I'm not sure the info is relevant even there, because you don't make clear what Assad's release has to do with development of an opposition group. That opposition group can consist of one or two ex-detainees, one or two ex-football players, one or two ex-soldiers, one or two ex-lawyers, one or two ex-bakers, farmers, students, etc etc.; so what? Perhaps I'm wrong, as I've never studied section 4, perhaps your information is very relevant over there in section 4. But I wouldn't seem honest to myself if I would not have warned you about my doubts in that matter, as I did. --Corriebertus (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The prisoner thing is just a weird conspiracy championed by Sayer, "Assad released Islamist prisoners, therefore he is responsible for Islamist fighters". The US has done exactly the same, released many Guantanamo prisoners who ended up leading Islamist groups in Syria, so what does that mean following this logic? http://online.wsj.com/articles/after-guantanamo-freed-detainees-return-to-violence-in-syria-battlefields-1401839291 FunkMonk (talk) 02:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I found out, that we have already an article 'Ahrar ash-Sham' that already states (with reference) that ‘most group founders were released from Sednaya prison in May 2011’. That seems the correct Wiki article to mention such facts, so I’ll just move the extra two references on this matter from SCW section 2.1 to that main article ‘Ahrar ash-Sham’. As I’ve argued, SCW section 2 is not the right place to put it in. (Conspiracies, like FunkMonk recites here, are not mentioned in that Ahrar article.) Corriebertus (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

...response to Arab Spring... ?

Section 2.1 (Protests etc. Jan–Jul2011) claims, ambiguously, that something (either ‘conflict’ or ‘uprising’ or ‘protests’) was/were a response to Arab Spring and corruption and abuses. First of all: does that ‘response’ linguistically refer to conflict or uprising or protests? Secondly: is that contention based on sources or is it personal interpretation of one or several Wiki editors? Corriebertus (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Good Image

Map of war in June 2014.

189.101.45.94 (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This map contradicts the situation on the ground. Jumada (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems it makes the common mistake of showing unpopulated desert areas as FSA controlled. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Areas where there should be only flows military. 189.101.44.90 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

election 2014 section

this section keeps getting written up in a biased way - it doesn't say the observers that called the elections free were from regime selected countries for example- I believe if you read it you take away the impression that a democratic regime did its best to conduct a vote in the midst of imperialist and rebel disruptiveness- a kind of assad indoctrinated editing stain pervades the section imo. There are also some awfully long lists of countries - including one called 'Cananda' - it's poor style apart from anything else - the sloppiness and rubbish-ness of the text reflecting the minds behind the texts - their fanaticism and incompetence at editing working together as disastrously as laurel and hardy attempting to scale a wall.a visual metaphor of erlabaeko and libdutch working on the article in such a way as to make assad regime happy the section as it stands is poorly assembled and slanted imo - Sayerslle (talk) 09:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

This are just personal attacks. But I have removed RT, itar-tass and SANA, and added a mainstream sources.--LibDutch (talk) 11:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The sources you replaced them with are fine by me, but both RT and ITAR-TASS are major news agencies with bureaus around the world. There is no (to my knowledge) community consensus banning them from being used as a WP:RS. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree but it is better to just use mainstream sources, then can't other people complain. Sayerslle has asked if it can be used as a reliable source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard I haven't remove only information, only replaced the sources. --LibDutch (talk) 12:43, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

'then can't other people complain' - 'just use mainstream sources' - like globalresearch ? did you use that? if you think your pathetic edits look anything other than pro-Assad regime propaganda you are wildly deluded but I can't be bothered to argue with you lot anymore. Sayerslle (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't use globalresearch, you are telling lies... It was Erlbaeko who used it.--LibDutch (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The globalresearch ref was for the "More than 9,000 polling stations were set up in government-held areas" statement. I was just trying to find a western media confirming the number of polling stations, but the ref has been replaced, and that is no problem. Thanks. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this section is being edited from a POV perspective. The goal should always be to use the best available consensus amongst reliable sources. Sayerselle: your editing is slanting the section as badly as LibDutch or Erlbaeko, such as the quotation you recently dumped in from the FSA which clearly violates Wikipedia: Quotations. While not policy, it is clearly unproductive to use quotations as a means to create non-neutral treatment of this highly contentious issue. Can we work together, editing in a spirit focused on reliable sources and non-neutral treatment? Because the editing of everyone here over the last few days makes me seriously question this. --184.167.140.190 (talk) 06:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Correcting lead section Syrian Civil War

My proposed begin of the lead section stands below under point 7 boldly printed, but this is my motivation:

1. 25April2011, the Wikipedia community decided to re-title this article (then called ‘2011 Syrian protests’) to: ‘2011 Syrian uprising’. We correctly then concluded, following outside sources, to consider Syria to be in a state of ‘(civil) uprising’; but that did not automatically imply that all protests in Syria since 26Jan2011, as then listed in the article, were to be considered part of that ‘uprising’. We should have realized that after this re-titling, the article covered: (a) protests since 28Jan2011 (Akleh poured gasoline and set fire: see Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January–April 2011)); and: (b) uprising since March2011 (The New York Times and Los Angeles Times of 25April2011 consider the ´uprising´ to have started between 15 and 21 March2011).
2. Instead, one editor on 25April2011,21:23 incorrectly and without motivation simply replaced the word ‘protest’ in the article by the word ‘uprising’, by which the article incorrectly asserted that the ‘uprising’ began on 26Jan2011.
3. Between 19June2011 and 11Dec2011, the lead section correctly explained that the Syrian ‘protests’ (26Jan2011) and ‘uprising’ (15March) had different starting dates (see the correct dates, above under point 1). 11dec2011, without motivation this clear distiction was removed. 22July2012, the lead (and the infobox) said that “The Syrian uprising … began on 15 March” and ignored the fact that this article also covers ‘protests’ starting 28Jan2011.
4. On 23July2012, a similar mistake as on 25April2011 (see above under point 1) was made. Wikipedia decided to ‘move’ (= re-title) the article to ‘Syrian Civil War’, after agreeing that Syria was then in a state of civil war. Again, that did not automatically mean that all ‘uprising’ in Syria since March2011, nor all protests since 28Jan2011, were to be considered ‘civil war’. We, again, should have realized that after this re-titling the article now covered: (a) protests since 28Jan2011; (b) uprising since mid-March2011; (c) civil war since no-agreed-upon-date, in or before July2012; and have made that clear in a re-written lead section.
5. For example like this:
   [A] The Syrian Civil War is a civil war now taking place in Syria.
   [B] Protests began on 28 January 2011. [see above under point 1]
   [C] Mass protests erupted on 15 March in Damascus and Aleppo, and in following days spread to more cities; that week is considered the beginning of the Syrian uprising. [See Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (January–April 2011).]
   [D] By July 2012, the International Committee of the Red Cross judged the fighting in Syria so widespread that the conflict should be considered a civil war. [See section 2.6 ‘Battles of Damascus and Aleppo (July–October 2012)’.]
   
6. Instead, on 13July2012 an editor unmotivatedly had already changed: “The Syrian uprising… began on 15 March 2011” into: “The Syrian uprising (also referred to as the Syrian civil war) … began on 15 March 2011”, implying the terms ‘Syrian uprising’ and ‘Syrian civil war’ to be equivalent, and (therefore) the civil war to have started 15March2011, which I consider incorrect. This incorrect assertion was then confirmed on 23July2012,11:04: “The Syrian Civil War, initially referred to as the Syrian uprising, (…) began on 15 March 2011…” which suggests or states the same equivalency between ‘civil war’ and ‘uprising’ and is just as incorrect. The same goes for “the S.c.w., also called the Syrian uprising” (July2013) and “the Syrian civil war, also known as Syrian uprising” (28Aug2013,17:06).
7. If we agree that the first tasks of the lead section are: (1) to define the title ‘Syrian Civil War’, and (2) to explain the transitions between the Syrian ‘protests’, ‘uprising’ and ‘civil war’; and that these two tasks are fulfilled correctly with above given new sentences [A, B, C and D]; then we’ll have to evaluate the present (‘old’) seven first sentences in the lead section which all to some extend seem to be either incorrect or unsourced or vague. To ease that discussion, I’ve numbered those sentences (a), (b) etc., and split them up in parts, like (a1), (a2), …, (c1), (c2), (c3), etc.:
   (a1) The Syrian Civil War,
   (a2) also known as the Syrian Uprising,
   (a3) is an armed conflict in Syria
   (a4) between forces loyal to the Ba'ath government, which took power in 1963, and those seeking to oust it.
   (b1) The unrest started as a civil uprising that were part of the wider North African and Middle Eastern protest movements known as the Arab Spring
   (b2) with Syrian protesters at first demanding democratic and economic reform within the framework of the existing government.
   (c1) The uprising
   (c2) began with protests in March 2011
   (c3) in Daraa, but
   (c4) a violent response from the government
   (c5) and subsequent clashes
   (c6) left dozens of opposition protesters and at least seven policemen dead.
   (d) By April, the protests were nationwide.
   (e1) In April 2011, the Syrian Army was deployed to quell the uprising
   (e2) and soldiers fired on demonstrators across the country.
   (f1) After months of military sieges,
   (f2) the protests developed into an armed rebellion.
   (g1) The conflict is asymmetrical,
   (g2) with clashes taking place in many towns and cities across the country.
   →(Don’t take my comments personal:)←
   ● (a2) is incorrect, as I’ve argued above under point 6. (If this part was meant to remind us that we spoke of some ‘uprising’ before we spoke of some ‘civil war’ in Syria, that reminding and explaining can be correctly done by the newly proposed sentences [C] and [D] (above under point 5).)
   ● (a3) ‘Civil war’ means more than ‘armed conflict’. Better leave that familiar term untranslated and direct people unfamiliar with the term to Wikilinked ‘civil war’—that’s what Wikilinks are for.
   ● (a4) is a personal, unmotivated, opinion (of 8Sep2012,13:01). If we nowadays see ‘rebels’ fighting each other in Syria and we present those events in this article, this ‘civil war’ article apparently includes more than the conflict between Assad and his opponents. We don’t need to name all participants of this war in the lead section, the lead can confine itself to shortly summarize what has really happened; the reader can find in specific sections 1 (Background) and 2 (Course of war) of the article – which I admit can use improvement – details on battling parties, their causes or goals, etc.
   ● (b1) Because of the definite article ‘the’, in “the unrest”, this ‘unrest’ must grammatically refer to some unrest already mentioned in the text; that can be only the ‘armed Civil War’ in the preceding sentence. However, nowhere in our article is stated that the ‘armed Civil War’ started already in March2011 (because it did not). Therefore, this whole sentence (b) is incorrect. (What we can say, and was perhaps meant by some editor, is that uprising started in March (see above, under point 1, and point 5, sentence [C]).)
   ● (b2) ‘at first’ is too vague; ‘within the framework…’ is unsourced personal opinion. We may wish to say, more precise, in new sentence [C2] (see below): “Until 7 April, the protesters’ demands were democratic reforms; after 8 April, the emphasis shifted towards calls for overthrowing the Assad government” (see Timeline March–April2011).
   ● (c1+c2) It’s unhistoric to make it seem as if some ‘uprising’ came out of the blue in March2011: protests started in January, got more massive in March2011 and were therefore considered ‘uprising’ from the week 15–21 March2011 onwards. That are essential facts in this lead, therefore presented in my newly proposed sentences [B] and [C] above under point 5.
   ● (c3) Protests January did not start in Daraa, uprising March also didn’t start in Daraa (see new sentences [B] and [C] above).
   ● (c6+c4+c5) It can be tempting to put every interesting detail in the lead section. Preferable from encyclopedic point of view is, to make a summarizing lead section of 300–400 words, a (clearer,) more detailed section 2.1 of also 300–400 words, et cetera. Thus, we can shortly say in a new sentence [C1] (see below) in the lead after sentence [C]: “Deadly violence of the government started 18 March, of the protesters on 20 March” (see Timeline March2011), and place those details of dozens of protesters and seven police dead by 20March in section 2.1 (see next Discussion section).
   ● (d) Unsourced and vague (‘nationwide’, ‘April’). ‘New’ sentence [C] says already that mass protests spread around 15–20 March to more cities. More details on protests’ spreading can be placed in section 2.1 (see next Discussion section).
   ● (e1) Unsourced personal interpretation. What we do know (see Timeline April and Timeline May 2011), and might wish to say in the lead, is: [C3] (see below): “25 April, the Syrian army started deadly attacks on towns.”
   ● (e2) Seeing that ‘new’ sentences C1, C2 and C4 already mention the killing from government forces in March–April, this part is now redundant and certainly too vague.
   ● (f1) Incorrect, we know of no sieges (but military attacks, see newly proposed sentence [C3] below).
   ● (f2) Vague, unsourced. (Footnote 73, Jakarta Post, is dead, by the way.) What we might wish to say, based and precise, in new sentences [C4+C5] (see below), is: “Significant armed rebellion began early June in Jisr al-Shughur. End of July 2011, defecting Syrian officers formed the Free Syrian Army aiming “to bring this regime down” with united opposition forces.”.
   ●(g1) Unsourced personal interpretation.
   ● (g2) Newly proposed sentences [C1 and C2] give already specific hints at clashes; this, too vague (when are those ‘clashes’? what is meant with ‘clash’? what is ‘many’?) part gives no precise extra information.
   ►► Above given reasoning results in the following new first nine sentences of the lead, covering 2011–2012:
   [A] The Syrian Civil War is a civil war now taking place in Syria.
   [B] Protests began on 28 January 2011.
   [C] Mass protests erupted on 15 March in Damascus and Aleppo, and in following days spread to more cities; that week is considered the beginning of the Syrian uprising.
   [C1] Deadly violence of the government started 18 March, of the protesters on 20 March.
   [C2] Until 7 April, the protesters’ demands were democratic reforms; after 8 April, the emphasis shifted towards calls for overthrowing the Assad government.
   [C3] 25 April 2011, the Syrian army started deadly attacks on towns.
   [C4+C5] Significant armed rebellion began early June in Jisr al-Shughur. End of July 2011, defecting Syrian officers formed the Free Syrian Army aiming “to bring this regime down” with united opposition forces.
   [D] By July 2012, the International Committee of the Red Cross judged the fighting in Syria so widespread that the conflict should be considered a civil war.
   
8. Because every word changed in the lead section can strongly influence the quality of the whole lead section, we should agree that all (further) edits in the lead section of article ‘Syrian Civil War’ should be discussed and motivated on the Talk page.
9. If we assume the infobox “Syrian uprising” on top of the article to have been correct on 22Jul2012, changing it on 23Jul2012,11:04 into box “Syrian Civil War…[starting:] Date 15 March 2011…” was just as incorrect as that same assertion in the lead section (see above under point 6). The simplest way to correct the infobox is by renaming it into box “Syrian uprising and civil war”.
10. Around 25July2012, lead sections of our ‘Timeline’-articles (all listed now in ‘Timeline of the Syrian Civil War’) were being edited to say things like: “…a timeline of the Syrian civil war from January to April 2011,…”, and their titles changed like: ‘Timeline of the Syrian civil war (January–April 2011)’. Ofcourse, these were mistakes similar to those, discussed above under point 4. As long as we haven’t agreed in Wikipedia when the ‘Syrian Civil War’ started, we should conclude that no valid motivation has ever been given for renaming those Timeline-articles up to July2012 as to suggest the Civil War was then already running. For now, we can only say (see above under point 4) that ‘protests’ had started in January2011, ‘uprising’ in March2011, and ‘civil war’ in or before July2012. Consequently, I suggest to rename the first Timeline-article clearly in: ‘Timeline of the Syrian protests and uprising (January–April 2011)’, the next three in: ‘…Syrian uprising…’, the next one in “…uprising and civil war…” (and leave only the Timelines of September–December2012 and later unaltered as “…civil war…”); and ofcourse adapt their lead sections accordingly. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Section 2.1 (Protests,uprising,Jan–Jul2011)

While upgrading the lead section of article ‘Syrian Civil War’ (see previous Discussion section), it appeared to me inevitable to make also some reparations in section 2.1. The crucial first sentence of the old version of §2.1 was right away from the start vague* (‘The’), incorrect** (‘The conflict began as civil uprising’), ambiguous*** (what was “response”: ‘conflict’? ‘uprising’? ‘protests’?) and twice unsourced (uprising ‘evolved from protests’? conflict/uprising/protests was/were “a response to Arab Spring etc.”***?). Don’t take these opinions as personal attacks.

Considering that the section showed more vagueness and incorrectness and unsourcedness, and most of all no clear chronological or any other sort of order, it seemed expedient to rebuild the whole section, starting out from the chronological lead section sentences [B], [C], [C1], [C2], [C3] and [C4] as presented in the previous Discussion section and inserting on logical places into that framework all bits of usefull (correct) information that were mentioned or hinted at somewhere in the old version.

(in italics are the 90 words information that are already said in the lead section; the rest is the extra information now given in §2.1):

[B] Small protests began in Syria on 28 January 2011.

[C] Mass protests erupted on 15 March in Damascus and Aleppo, and spread in the following days to more cities while growing in size. That week 15–21 March is, since 25 April 2011 with hindsight, considered by news media as the beginning of the Syrian uprising. [See Timeline SCW,March–April2011.]

[C1] On 18 March, the protests turned bloody when the Syrian government reacted with deadly violence. 20 March in Daraa, after security forces had opened fire into the protesting crowd, protesters burned the local Ba'ath Party headquarters and the town’s courthouse and a building of a telephone company. That day reportedly 15 demonstrators and 7 policemen were killed in Daraa. [See Timeline SCW,March–April2011.] By 25 March, reportedly 90 civilians and 7 policemen had been killed in Syria. [See Timeline SCW,March–April2011.]

[C2] The protesters’ demands until 7 April were predominantly democratic reforms, release of political prisoners, “freedom”, abolition of emergency law and an end to corruption. After 8 April, the emphasis in demonstration slogans gradually shifted towards the call for overthrowing the Assad government. Protests spread: on Friday 8 April, they occurred simultaneously in ten cities, Friday 22 April in twenty cities. [See Timeline SCW,March–April2011.]

[C3] 25 April, the Syrian Army started a series of large-scale deadly military attacks on towns, using tanks, infantry carriers, and artillery, leading to again hundreds of civilian deaths. [See Siege of Daraa, Siege of Homs, Timeline SCW,May2011.] End of May 2011, 1,000 civilians and 150 soldiers and policemen had been killed and thousands detained; among the arrested were many students, liberal activists and human rights advocates.

[C4] Significant armed rebellion against the state began on 4 June in Jisr al-Shugur, a city in Idlib Governorate near the Turkish border. Security forces on the post office had fired at a funeral demonstration, then protesting mourners set fire to the building, killing 8 security officers, then overran a police station, seizing weapons from it. Violence continued and escalated the following days. Reportedly, a portion of the security forces in Jisr defected after secret police and intelligence officers had executed soldiers who had refused to fire on civilians.

Later, more protesters in Syria took up arms, and more soldiers defected to protect protesters.

Both sides in the conflict used propaganda to promote their own righteousness and their opponent’s wickedness (see Reporting, censoring and propaganda in the Syrian Civil War). The Syrian government as well as armed opposition groups are being accused by the UN of torture (see Human rights violations during the Syrian civil war). End of July 2011, around 1,600 civilians and 500 security forces had been killed, 13,000 arrested. [see version ‘2011 Syrian uprising’ 31July2011 ] [END of proposed section 2.1]

• What I did not preserve from the old version, is: [old sentence 2] ‘…Daraa…’: unrest Daraa 15March2011 is unsourced. [sentence 3] ‘…concessions…’ is vague: what is meant and what is the relevance here? [sent. 7]: removed to Ahrar ash-Sham#Origin, ideology and structure (see earlier Discussion ‘Assad in May2011 releasing prisoners’). [sent. 10] ‘quell’: unsourced. [snt. 11] ‘restive’: non-objective, negative term. [snt. 13 and 14] ‘many’ is vague and should be avoided; if anyone knows any concrete numbers he’s welcome to add them here. [sent. 19] unsourced: ‘sieges’, ‘…evolved...’.
• Note *: ‘The’ (…conflict…) is a definite article; that means that is must refer to some ‘conflict’ already mentioned in the text; in this situation, it can only refer to the ‘Syrian Civil War’ mentioned in the lead section and called there a “conflict”. What this sentence therefore actually but vaguely is saying, is: “The … Syrian Civil War initially began as…”.
• Note **: “The … conflict … began” means in this context: “The … Syrian Civil War … began” (see note *). It may be someone’s personal opinion that a Syrian Civil War already started between January and July 2011, but that has never been a motivated opinion, based on sources, in Wikipedia; so it’s incorrect to write that in this period Jan–Jul2011 ‘the Syrian Civil War began’.
• Note ***: See earlier Discussion ’...response to Arab Spring... ?’. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)