Jump to content

Talk:Syrian civil war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sword of St. Michael (talk | contribs) at 13:17, 2 July 2011 (→‎"Human Rights Watch", led by an American Jew. Conflict of interest?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral

Goals: "Islamic rule over Syria"

Are we sure this is true? The source given for this statement is just one and looks awfully like a propaganda site for the Syrian government: the dit in question "Islamic rule over Syria" and the source given. Also the edit summary "the claim is confirmed as the were going to announce the Islamic state on 25.04.2011 in Daraa" - without a WP:RS I do not believe for a moment that this was really going to happen! And funnily it sounds like Gaddafi and his "Islamic Emirate" in Darnah. Anyway - without more reliable sources I believe that this claim of "Islamic rule over Syria" must not be added to the article. noclador (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more sources for sure, but it is no secret that there is a very strong Salafist element in the uprising, if not the main element. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Salafist element is one thing - a declared goal by the protesters to have Islamic rule over Syria is something else; especially as there is no such thing as an Islamic rule! noclador (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sharia is Islamic rule. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every single Muslim on Earth, all 1 billion of them, practices Shariah daily. It exists all over the West, do not confuse the Draconian laws of some Muslim-majority countries, with Shariah. --Smart30 (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is the first time I hear this. I would like to see some WP:RS. Tonemgub2010 (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question has re-add this stuff[1], with two new sources, which take the Salafist line from Syrian State officials: "State television in Damascus, quoting a government source" "a spokesman for the Syrian Interior Ministry, speaking on local television"; therefore in my view this even more underlines that the Islamic rule claim is nothing but government propaganda. noclador (talk) 05:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal view is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the view isn't espoused by protest organizers directly, I don't think it should be included in the infobox. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the only place you shall find that claim is in government propaganda. Whether or not, there is a "strong salafist movement" in the uprising, is something no one can say for sure and be honest. So you'd be hard pressed to find an RS that states that. If there is, then the protest organizers are doing a hell of a job not talking about it. All statements coming from the Local Coordination Committees (the ones who are coordinating the protests on the ground) vehemently denies such. Yazan (talk) 21:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Soldiers killed for refusing to shoot at protesters?

This statement was yesterday added to the article:

On 28 April, Al Jazeera aired footage of what appear to be injured soldiers receiving aid from civilians in Syria, reportedly after they refused orders to shoot at protesters and were fired upon by loyalist units. The network warned it could not independently verify the authenticity of the footage but claimed that it came from a "reliable source".[138]

I find the claim very doubtful. Falsely claiming that killed and injured soldiers where shot by their own officers for refusing to shoot at protesters seems to have become a standard tactic of Arab revolutionaries. A similar example of false information originates from Libya.

On April 1, The Globe and Mail published a story about rebel atrocities in northern Cyrenaica:

  • Graeme Smith (April 01, 2011). "A rebellion divided: spectre of revenge killings hangs over eastern Libya". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2011-04-30. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

The story reported on an incident where a group of 22 Libyan POWs were executed at the Hisha crossroads near the village of Makhtuba, 20 kilometres east of Darnah around February 23. The solders had been stationed at an air base, possibly the Martuba Air Base south of Makhtuba. At first civilians in Darnah tried to shelter the prisoners from lynching, but the next day they were taken away and later found at the crossroads, each with "a bullet in the head.”

On February 23 at least four cyber warrior YouTube accounts published a video showing a group of about 22 captured soldiers with their hands tied behind their backs, executed "KGB style" by gunshots through the back of the head. The captions claimed the men were Libyan soldiers who were killed for disobeying orders

On the same day, February 23 the International Federation for Human Rights claims, that 130 Libyan soldiers have been executed for disobeying orders to kill protesters. The story is reported by the French AFP news agency and repeated among others by Sky News, Xianet and Iranian Press TV.

A reference is made to the Feb 23 video, in fact the story seems to be primarily based on it. These claims by human rights organizations were a major motivation to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 on February 26 that imposed sanctions on Libya.

The Globe and Mail story also references the "killed by Gaddafi" story, stating that at the time of reporting some locals were repeating this version of events.

Later two other videos made by rebels came to light. The first one (copy) shows a more detailed picture of the massacre scene. The other is of what look like Islamist militants interrogating nine POWs about a firefight at the air base. Many of the solders are identifiable in all three videos as later pointed out by Libyan state television.

To cut the long story short: In reality rebels in Darnah verifiably massacred 22 prisoners by shots to the head and another 15 by public hanging. Most likely they massacred all 130 soldiers that were reportedly missing from the group of "mercenaries" captured near Darnah. "Mercenaries" in this case is a racist slur used to target Libyans from the southern part of the country with darker skin and African features.

Videos on YouTube

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting theory, but it's just a theory. We're presenting all unverified information here as claims; if they're later proven or disproved, we'll change the language or append a statement to that effect. I have to say I think it's a fallacious assumption that if one side is doing it, the other cannot possibly be doing the same - and that goes both ways, obviously, though I think there's more evidence of systemic, top-down brutality from the Syrian government and the Gaddafi regime than there is from the Syrian protesters and Libyan interim government. -Kudzu1 (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of this has been shown to be fabricated, so keep it out. Yes, the regime makes a lot of stories up, but the anti-regime people sure as hell do as well. It's just a lame way to explain how almost a hundred Syrian soldiers/security people have been killed, even though the protesters are allegedly "peaceful" and "unarmed". The death toll ratio is certainly fishy, if we assume that the Syrian regime are evil and just wants to kill everyone. FunkMonk (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Such claims can now be put in the "armed protesters" section. FunkMonk (talk) 04:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbiha

The name "Shabbiha" origin isn't known exactly. Actually some of Latakian citizens think that it's derived from "Shabah" which is a name of a Mercedes Benz car! Since many government's high-ranking employees like ministers and many Assad family, pro-government, and guns-dealers have those cars. Those cars had dark windows and usually were a source of fear to the normal Syrian people because most of their drivers are armed and supported heavily by the government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latakiandr (talk • contribs) 02:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have WP:RS to back this up, by all means please be bold and fix it. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian refugees

The issue of numerous refugees is not yet related in the article. The numbers are in their thousands and possibly rising towards 5 digit numbers - fleeing to Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. There are also many displaced as well. Hundreds of women and children have recently fled to Lebanon according [2] and [3]. Hundreds had fled Syria by May 03rd, heading for Turkey [4]. This is a possible humanitarian crisis in the making - Turkey is already worried on this issue - [5].Greyshark09 (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More refugees flee to Turkey in early June - some 2,500, according to Turkish officials, by June 09th. See here - [6].Greyshark09 (talk) 12:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2,700 refugees fled to Turkey per CNN - [7].Greyshark09 (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're able, I think you should go ahead and add these to the article. It's clear you've been working to educate yourself and keep yourself up to date on this important issue and I believe you would consequently be the best person to add this information to the page. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. We might need to split it into a separate page if the problem keeps evolving.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Youtube videos

Something needs to be said about all the false videos floating around which is claimed to be from Syria, but it's hard to find English sources about it. Danish TV has apologised for using images from Iraq[8][9], Reuters has apparently provided news channels with old footage from Lebanon as well.[10] On top of this, there are also those funny videos of dead protesters suddenly rising up when they think the cameras are off, and the one with the empty coffin.[11] FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename request -> 2011 Syrian revolution

With the current status, I would suggest the article be renamed to 2011 Syrian revolution, since more and more stations are naming it thus[12]. The president has left the country, and the conflicts are close to becoming a civil war[13]. Rkarlsba (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A revolution is the situation where a regime is replaced by a new government, often with considerable differences to the previous, as was the case with Tunisia, Egypt and possibly Yemen in the coming days. As Assad remains in power, there is no need for a name change to 'revolution' as of yet. If he is removed, it should be changed. However, with large numbers of security forces being killed (reported on the 6 June), there is potential for a 'Syrian Civil War'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan.krammer (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rkarlsba, your links are for Libya and your information is for Yemen, why are you are on the Syrian Uprising page? --Smart (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time to spin off some material into another article

It's time to spin off some material into another article. We are now at 124,277 bytes. When it hits 100,000, it is generally considered a good point to spin off material. I would suggest that whatever is spun off, the goal be to reduce this page below 100,000, inasmuch we certainly will be adding more material to it over the coming days and weeks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be appropriate to create a page for International reactions to the 2011 Syrian uprising. The efforts of the Syrian, Turkish, and Israeli governments to forestall media coverage in Syria and on the borders have made it very difficult to do a day-by-day timeline the likes of which we have for Libya and Yemen, but it might be worth trying. I'm not volunteering to make that page, but I'd be willing to help keep it up to date once it's established. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, turns out we already had a page and I wasn't paying attention to it. Anyway, I've summarized the timeline on this page and moved major events that weren't well covered on the dedicated timeline page over there. I'll start watching that page, too. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos! Nice work!--Epeefleche (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some unwarranted splits have also been made. Do we really need an article like this[14], which is nothing but a list of Youtube links? FunkMonk (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why does the article say civilians?

why does the article say that civilians are being killed? maybe some but it is mostly armed groups and there is proofs and facts of this and not made up stories by the US and others. is wikipedia owned by Zionists or not? it looks like it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.184.107.229 (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your perspective. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supporting genocide. --Smart (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting unverified propaganda. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article should support what the WP:RS says.--Shrike (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is a classical case of "right for the wrong reasons". The article says civilians, but perhaps there are elements which could be more accurately be described as clan or sectarian and who should not be grouped together with the civilian protesters. We should be careful not to make that mistake, even if it hasn't happened yet. Also Kudzu1, Smart30 & FunkMonk should do everyone a favor and not act like this is a forum. In other words if your not explaining why it should be civilians, why he is wrong or what the wikipedia rules say it is you'd best keep your remarks to yourself even if you are right.--Tomvasseur (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for supporting the forumcides. 190.51.160.54 (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unverified claims presented as fact

We need to be very careful with the language here, it is pretty clear that the truth lies somewhere in between the claims of opposition sources and the claims of the government, since many stories have turned out to be false over the last weeks. Yet there is a tendency here (as in all western media) to present all opposition claims as fact, and be doubtful of any claims made by the government. This is a problem, especially when the claims are only supported by blogs and dubious news-sites. The biggest problem is that none of the info coming from Syria can be verified at all, since there is no foreign media there. Every claim has to be followed by an explanation of who has made it. FunkMonk (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. At the very least, language like "allegedly", "supposedly", "purportedly", and "reportedly" should be used to qualify statements when no credible source (respected news media, I think, qualifies as credible) can independently verify. And that requires a bit of discernment on the part of the editor. Generally if the news article notes that information was supplied by "activists", "witnesses", or "sources", it should be noted in the text of this article as such. I know it's frustrating because we all want to know what's going on and it's tough because of the ban on outside media, but that doesn't mean we can decide what is true from the comfort and safety of our armchairs. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The new claims of rape and massacre should be looked at, they seem highly dubious and hyperbolic, but time will tell. FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I agree they should be included and clearly denoted as claims, with the persons and groups advancing the claims clearly identified. This is a problem I've run into on almost every page I've edited; people (I assume many of them not native English speakers or able to contribute at a near-native level) often use passive voice such as "claims have been made", "reports have been shown", and "it has been said". (In case I need to elucidate further, this is not an acceptable syntax, as it excludes the claimant and reads rather poorly to boot.) -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think its pretty simple if WP:RS report it than we can insert it as a fact.Of course blogs is not WP:RS.If you have problem with some specific claims or specific sources that should be brought to talk or WP:RSN--Shrike (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the blog - news blogs, obviously, may be an exception if they're of a professional quality and are considered credible - but with personal blogs, generally yes. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that the blog A Gay Girl in Damascus, which reported on political events in Syria, turned to be a Scottish man in the UK, yes, we must be very careful.
Also, despite this discussion, I see an awful lot of material in the article reported as fact and without the Syrian government's position included as counterweight. For example, in the lead, there is no mention of their position that it is armed gangs who killed Syrian forces in Jisr al-Shughur. Only the opposition perspective is included, as fact ... this problem is repeated over and over again throughout the article.I'd ask those adding information to always include the views of both sides, attributed to their speakers.Tiamuttalk 13:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Syrian government position is outlined pretty clearly in the timeline article, but yes, I agree we need to be careful about balance in the main article - and yes, we can note the number of respectable journalists who cite evidence that the Syrian government's pants are on fire. And no, just because the government is lying doesn't mean opposition activists are all necessarily telling the truth. -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not only the Gay Girl blog, but many videos have been shown to be from other countries, or downright staged, of both killings and army defections, but the media gobbles it up anyway. And there are constantly made analogies between Libya and Syria, though the case in Syria is more similar to the one in Bahrain, which is never mentioned, due to obvious reasons. FunkMonk (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We should maybe have a section on disinformation that includes things like the Gay Girl blog or the impersonation of the Syrian ambassador to France that led to France 24 announcing her resignation [15]. There was also the soldier reported killed by certain Arab media stations for disobeying orders who turned out to be alive and and well and still serving [16]. (Aside: I can't stand Al Jazeera anymore and I was once an addict. It lost all credibility over its non-reporting of Bahrain and other Gulf protests and its obsession with Syria). Anyway, I'm not sure how we would title such a section without going into OR, but for the first two, the word "Hoaxes" is used by RS and could be good for now. Tiamuttalk 18:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its not in our competence to question WP:RS and they editorial oversight if you think what the WP:RS is wrong you should have sources that back it up and then you may present it in the article.--Shrike (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys are really that mad at al jazeera, we will stop using it. Al jazeera has reported on Bahrain many times, especially in the case the doctors falsely accused of crimes. Only 36 people died in Bahrain, compared to a combined total of over 1800 in Syria. Also for a span of 3 months most of the protesters gave up protesting in Bahrain, although now we are starting to see a renewal. Because of this, there was nothing to report on Bahrain, other than Khalifa's retarded accusations of foreign conspiracies and his attempts to dismantle the shiite parties. The syrian people however keep protesting, and the Syrian government still has to resort to heavy crackdown because of the large threat of government collapse, which the protesters are obviously calling for. Anyway, we will be sure not to use al jazeera anymore for this page then.Zenithfel (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My disgust at Al Jazeera's biased reporting was an aside and is irrelevant as to whether or not it is an RS for this article. It certainly is, as much as FOX News is, or any other mainstream media outlet. How you or I feel about its reporting doesn't make it any less of an RS. I'm sorry for mentioning it, as I did not mean to derail the discussion.
Anyway, after reviewing the article again, I see that both the Gay Girl blog hoax and the ambassador hoax are already mentioned. Perhaps a separate section on hoaxes is unnecessary, unless we see more of them in the days to come. Tiamuttalk 08:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Protesters in Tishreen University.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Protesters in Tishreen University.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:41, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Government (and protestor) assertions, in the absence of non-Syrian media and eyewitness support

I think we might benefit from some thoughtful discussion here as to how to address the fact that the government has said certain things (colloquially they might be called "claims") that the press has emphasized repeatedly are unsubstantiated by eyewitness reports or reliable non-local media. Tiamut is now deleting some of the language that calls the government reports into question. The unusual circumstance here -- with non-Syrian media generally not allowed in the country -- is something the press has focused on greatly, and it has altered their normal description of reported events. This of course impacts comments by the government's opposition, as well. Suggestions as to how best strike a balance would be helpful -- simply saying that "the government said x" may not be sufficient, in these unusual circumstances, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should have a section at the beginning of the "Protests and Uprising" section that discusses the information situation, the state restrictions on foreign media access and the lack of third-party verification for both the claims of the state and the claims of activists, who often report anonymously by telephone or on the internet.
I don't think using "claims" or "alleges" is necessary. These are weasel words. Its enough to use "said" and attribute speech to its speakers. Tiamuttalk 20:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How are those weasel words? They're verbs for unverified speech. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are words that express doubt and are to be avoided per WEASEL. Most of the sources cited simply use "said" and attribute speech to either activists or the government or witnesses or whatever. As I suggested, this article would benefit from a section that outlines the difficulties of confirming statements from all parties involved due to the lack of third-party independent observers. Tiamuttalk 08:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read the policy again: "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people on trial for crimes. When alleged or accused is used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear." That's clearly the case with the majority of usages here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who's on trial? We are dealing here with reports of the activities of citizens, soldiers, policemen, the government,etc., as reported by these different actors. True, these are unsubstantiated reports since there is little opportnity for independent third-party verifications, but should we prima facie instill doubt into the mind of the reader by using "claimed" or "alleges" before every piece of information? It is enough to attribute every statement to its speaker and use neutral language like "said" or "reported". The issue of the lack of substantiation and the reasons for it should be outlined in a subsection near the top of the page so that readers understand the overall context in which these statements are being made. Its cumbersome and unnecessarily prejudicial to preface everything with "claim" or "allege" (it comes off as if everybody in Syria is a congenital liar) and if we decide to use it for some statements and not others, we risk introducing POV. Much better to keep it simple and neutral and provide the context for the statements in a reliably sourced subsection on how information is disseminated by the different actors involved and under what circumstances. Tiamuttalk 19:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one has been indicted, obviously, but both sides are accusing the other of criminal conduct. You're splitting hairs. And yes, we absolutely should instill doubt in the reader in reporting these claims when they are unverified and especially when other sources directly contradict them. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When sources contradict one another, we should report that "X said so-and-so" and "Y said "so-and-so". There is no simply no need to say "X claimed so-and-so" and "Y alleged so-and-so". the reader is not stupid ... they can see that there are conflicting reports about what is happening and they can judge for themselves what it is they want to believe or disbelieve.
If we look at how RS report on this matter, they use the format I am suggesting. For example, let's look at how the Wall Street Journal reports on what happened in Jisr al-Shughur:

"Syria said 120 police and security-force members were killed Monday by armed groups in a northwestern town, vowing to take swift action against an ambush that would stand as the deadliest strike against government troops in the country's antiregime uprising.
The government announcement was quickly challenged, however, by activists, town residents and others, whose contrasting accounts suggested that the events in Jisr al-Shoghour may be part of a broader struggle playing out within Syria's armed forces.
Residents said the town was quiet Monday, after a violent weekend some said included infighting between security forces and defections by young army officers. Residents and activists said they feared the government was laying the groundwork for a large-scale reprisal."

Do you see the words "Claimed" or "Alleged" anywhere here? No, because its an unnecessarily wordy and prejudicial way of conveying information in a case where little information can be verified. Let the different speakers position be presented neutrally, the way that RS's would. Tiamuttalk 06:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Armed protesters

I have a fealing the one who wrote this section is under the pay of the syrian government.--J intela (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think accusations like that are fair or constructive. It's very, very difficult to verify reports from within Syria because only a few journalists have managed to get into the country and it isn't easy to verify dates, locations, or contexts claimed in YouTube videos. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

National Council

Should we start writing up a separate article on the Council leading the Syrian Revolution which was announced today? However, as details are apparently scant at the moment, would it be wise to just put that article on hold for now?64.134.68.219 (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions of reliably sourced content

I added some information on how this uprising differs from the Egyptian revolultion, in that it has also involved vandalism and attackson security forces by armed elements. I also added some information on how the numbers of those protesting compares with Egypt. I did this using an article published in The Irish Times.

These additions were reverted here and in a prior edit by another editor. I believe this information should be included. Can we discuss ways it can be included and where? Tiamuttalk 19:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We also need to include information on the makeup of the protestors. This article [17] indicates that "Analysts point out the regime continues to enjoy the support of three major demographic segments — the Christians, who form around 10 per cent of the population; the Druze community; and the Allawites, the President's kinsmen who pack the Army's officer corps." It also mentioned by many RS that no major protests against the government have been held in the two largest cities: Damascus and Aleppo. None of these facts is currently reflected in this article. Shall we make a new section on "Involvement in protests"? Tiamuttalk 20:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting unverified propaganda.190.51.160.54 (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its all unverified propaganda, and you are welcome. Tiamuttalk 18:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That last isn't accurate at all. There have been protests in many, many districts of Damascus, as well as in Aleppo (particularly at Aleppo University). -Kudzu1 (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The source was referring to the Friday before last and wrote : "However, no major protests were held in the two largest cities — Damascus and Aleppo, Syria's commercial capital. " I've seen the same description made generally elsewhere.
"But despite it all, the central squares of Aleppo and Damascus have been the site of large rallies in support of the beleaguered president. If those pro-government demonstrations subside, and begin to be replaced by opposition marches, analysts said it would likely signal a tipping point for the regime’s grip on power."
"Central neighbourhoods in Aleppo have been largely quiet, with a heavy security presence and the political and business alliance intact between Aleppan Sunni business families and the ruling hierarchy, from Syria's minority Alawite sect, an offshoot of Shiite Islam."
Note the last source also mentions the protests at Aleppo University where there were about a dozen arrests. I guess they are not considered major protests? I've been to demonstrations in North America where hundreds were arrested - one with a dozen arrests barely made the news. Tiamuttalk 18:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ANd Kudzu, would you mind commenting of the content of the edits I made and where or whether it might be worth including here? DO you think its right to compare this uprising to the one in Egypt and claim the protestors are wholly non-violent when multiple RS say otherwise? Tiamuttalk 18:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No make a subsection for comparisons, like the subsection made for Shabbiha. Comparisons don't belong in the lead. Zenithfel (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Zenithfel. And that subsection already exists. As I've said before, it's difficult to verify exactly what is going on. -Kudzu1 (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

distortion the image of the movement buting Armed elements

the links [134][135][136][137][138] do not prove any armed elements in Syria but just adopt the State TV Story... this may give the government forces justification to kill more if the State tv was correct why the prevent international media to move freely in the country pleas review the paragraph "Armed elements"

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.178.236.56 (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Human Rights Watch", led by an American Jew. Conflict of interest?

Human Rights Watch is portrayed in this article as the supreme moral arbiter of all humanity. Yet this is just a lobby group, an influential one yes, but a lobby group with political motivations all the same. It is also led by Kenneth Roth, who is an American Jew. Since the Syrian government is known to have sometimes contentious relations with both the governments of the United States and Israel (supported by most Jews) it would seem that there is a conflict of interest here, putting this group forward as judge and jury of the world, especially as who leads Human Rights Watch is obscured and if people try to add it to the article, its reverted. Sword of St. Michael (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_civil_war&oldid=437389232"