Talk:Syrian civil war

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

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)

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)

yes the overlong quote was not the right response - it said something that struck a chord - I got exasperated - I can't edit the section usefully at the moment as I'm so sick of the pro-Assad pov editing - if I can stay calm enough i'm determined to return to it with good RS sources that could lead to the section giving a more rounded narrative - how many refugees could not vote because of restrictive rules, about pressure in govt held areas to vote and get that ink on their hands, - how some conducted parody elections in rebel held areas, 'the blood election' narrative should be told more -its difficult though - its like when you try and put about Assad releasing the extreme jihadists from Sednaya in spring 2011 - the Assadists get mad and remove it because they want to deliver regime narratives Sayerslle (talk) 22:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe the presidential election section (this version) now is in pretty good shape. Would those of you involved in working on it agree that we can remove the "The neutrality of this article is disputed" header? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erlbaeko (talk • contribs) 15:15, 10 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] Small protests in Syria began on 28 January 2011. [see above under point 1]
   [C] Mass protests against the government erupted on 15 March 2011 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, with 16,000 people killed, 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 or misleading. 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
   (b2) that were part of the wider North African and Middle Eastern protest movements known as the Arab Spring
   (b3) 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 is armed conflict but it's more than that. For people who don't know the meaning of the term we've now Wikilinked to our article ‘Civil war’ in the newly proposed sentence [A].
   ● (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. ‘Civil uprising’ started mid-March2011 (see above under point 1) but there is no reason to equal ‘civil war’ to ‘civil uprising’ and say or suggest that ‘civil war’ started also in March2011 (see above under point 6). Therefore, 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 under point 5 the proposed new sentence [C]).)
   (b2) ‘…part of…Arab Spring…’ is unsourced and seems a personal interpretation of some Wiki editor (see earlier discussion in section ‘...response to Arab Spring... ?’).
   ● (b3) ‘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) 'The uprising' means here grammatically 'the civil war' (see explanation of line (b1)). It’s incorrect to say the 'civil war' started 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, as I've argued above under point 1, and formulated in my proposed new 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, within ten days 100 people were killed” (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) 'Sieges' is misleading term for 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] Small protests in Syria began on 28 January 2011.
   [C] Mass protests against the government erupted on 15 March 2011 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, within ten days 100 people were killed.
   [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, with 16,000 people killed, 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)

TL;DR... FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Tl and dr are not in my dictionary. Can we speak normal English on this Wikipedia? What’s the matter with Mr FutureTrillionaire (‘Christian’, he judged necessary to impart to us on his user page): is he suddenly too tired or too lazy to write polite, understandable sentences or messages here? B… off then, pr kq cct. Corriebertus (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Please, avoid personal attacks and assume good faith. TL;DR is a very common phrase on the internet.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

TL;DR as well. Anyway, the first paragraph is now written in poor English and has no references to sources, which makes it much worse than the previous version. --Emesik (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for translating. FT wanted to inform us that my posting of 9 June was ‘too long’ and that he ‘did not read’ it. The ‘TL’ I take as a personal attack because FT does not respect my right to express an opinion on a Talk page. He has no right to judge another person’s posted opinion as being ‘too long’. ‘Did not read’: who wants to know? Are we going to write ‘DR’ on all postings in Wikipedia that we did not read?? @ Emesik: he regrets the first paragraph (does he mean of the lead section or of sect.2.1?) to have no references to sources. Perhaps he is mistaken. Sect.2.1 refers to a main article that will provide references to sources. In the ideal situation, the whole sect.2.1 would contain not one direct reference to a source. The same goes for lead section: it only summarizes what is said in lower sections such as 2.1, 2.2 et cetera, and ideally the whole lead section would need very litle or no direct references to sources; therefore, having no references doesn’t make lead or §2.1 worse than a previous version with more references to sources.

Em. also considers the first part of lead section to be written in poor English (and therefore worse than previous version?). ‘Poor’ has many meanings; in some of those meanings I might perhaps agree with Em, in other meanings I would perhaps disagree with his observation. Can he make clear in what sense he means that language to be poor? Anyway, apart from my choice of words which can ofcourse be criticised or corrected, I’ve argued in my discussion postings of 9 June why I consider the content my version correcter, better motivated and sourced, et cetera. Of course, all my arguing of 9 June stands open for discussion. (P.S.: I just now notice that FT placed his posting above an earlier posting of Emesik. Can he please put his later posting simply on the bottom of a discussion section and nowhere else? Would seem much preferable to me.) --Corriebertus (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is bad practice to eliminate references from the lede just "because they are included later". It makes the important, opening sentences harder to verify to other users and easier to be challenged by other editors.

By "poor English" I mean that the sentences look somewhat awkward and less informative that they did before. English is not my first language and I'm far from claiming that I'm an expert, but phrasing like "Deadly violence of the government started 18 March, of the protesters on 20 March." just don't sound well. Also there are repetitions of words deadly and protests which could be easily avoided.

To sum it up, I prefer to work on the previous version in order to improve it, over scrapping it all and replacing by yours.--Emesik (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I said things here on 12 June that I should not have said, and I apologize for them. On the other hand: what options had I left? I had discovered what I considered mistakes in lead section, reaching back to 25April2011. While investigating, I noticed that hundreds, perhaps thousands, edits had been made in lead section but almost NEVER motivated in their edit summary. Phrases seemed to have been introduced dozens of times, removed again dozens of times, without anyone daring to discuss the disagreement and sort it out for good.

So I thought, to make a change: I will scrupulously motivate my edit on lead section, and ask the colleagues to do the same. After 2½ days, FT wrote behind my edit justification: “TL;DR…”. We all know that it is the most rude and insulting thing to do, to start talking in some unknown or secret language in the presence of people that don’t understand it, and that’s what FT did. Moreover, he demonstratively refused to answer to my discussion in normal and polite English. What options had I left, being so collegially insulted and despised? I asked if FT might have been tired or lazy. After translation given as ‘too long, didn’t read’, FT appeared to have been rude also in another way: openly refusing to read polite collegial pertinent discussion over this page by disqualifying my posting as ‘too long’ (which explains why he had not even dared to say it out loud: “too long!”). Believe me, if I could have said it in less words I would gladly have done so, but this was the minimum to really explain what had gone wrong in that lead.

After that bad, uncivilized (sorry), example set by FT, colleague Emesik ofcourse assumed that it is accepted in Wikipedia to NOT read people’s motivations of edits but object against them all the same. 13+12 June, he dislikes some references being eliminated from the lead but gives no example. Let’s look at the first ref in the old version of 8June: note 72, ‘bomber targets…’, Bangkok Post, 15June2012, writing: “…as the uprising against President Assad enters its 16th month…”. Apparently, this ref should prove that the SCW “is also known as the Syrian Uprising”. However, it does not at all prove that, as I’ve carefully argued on 9June here in my discussion (under point 6). Sorry, but if editors like our esteemed Emesik simply refuse to read explanations of colleagues, that will be the end of Wikipedia.

Then Emesik considers some sentences ‘awkward’. He can be right, just like he I’m no native speaker. I’ve concentrated on the content of the old version which many times was obviously incorrect/vague/unsourced (as I argued 9June, read that!). Many many phrases have been tried, and changed, perhaps hundreds of times, to depict the violence starting and escalating in March2011; the latest version (8June) was simply incorrect and vague and overly detailed (read my post 9June!). My new phrasing is indeed utterly simple, but it is the bare correct essence, put as shortly as possible (longer version to be found in section 2.1). The word ‘deadly’ is repeated once, the only synonym I know is ‘lethal’ which I consider rather undesirably posh and aloof here—the terrible truth is that people are still dying by the numbers in Syria. Don’t blame the messenger. Emesik ‘prefers to work on the previous version’ and bluntly ignore/abort my edit of 9June2014 without reading and reacting on my motivations for it and without much arguments to do so -- except the provocative 'argument' of FutureTrillionaire that it is all right in Wikipedia to simply ignore and despise edits and arguments of other editors if you feel like ignoring them. That would be completely off bounds as long as Wikipedia tries to be a respectable cooperative project. Emesik is welcome though to make improvements on the present version in Wikipedia; I very much urge him (and others) to motivate any possible edits (as I asked 9June, point 8). --Corriebertus (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Corriebertus, please understand that the previous version of the opening paragraph did not emerge out of the blue. It was a result of months of collaboration, discussion and arguments between numerous editors. You just threw it overboard with all the references, which is very bold move as for editing the lede of a very controversial article. I would be happy with that if you had contributed a version much better than the previous one. You did not — and this is my own, personal opinion. --Emesik (talk) 18:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Corriebertus' lede is written in very choppy English. The lede is not a timeline, it is an introduction to the subject.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I made an edit on page SCW, with a (rather longish) motivation on Talk page. You two refuse to read that motivation, which seems to me totally not-Wiki, and unpolite. Only saying that my motivation was “too long” (after which standards?) is a personal attack, in the sense that it denies my basic right (vital for Wikipedia !) to motivate an edit in my own words. In short: you violate basic politeness and Wiki philosophy and guidelines. That makes it rather impossible to further ‘discuss’ with you here. I’m not going to go on with repeating myself, and contradicting things like: ‘…did not come out of the blue…’ which is rather an absurd thing to say, considering the amount of work I’ve done myself to show that indeed the lead section did not come out of the blue. The point I’ve been making some five times now, is that the lead contained (sometimes rather old) mistakes. It’s rather a nonsensical, insulting to say that I “just threw things overboard”: I’ve scrupulously motivated what and why I’ve removed from the article. As for FT: where did I say the lead is a Timeline? (And please stop writing ‘lede’ if your English is supposed to be superior to mine.) If you want a better lead, then make it, and please have the courtesy (and cooperative Wiki-ness) to motivate your possible edit. --Corriebertus (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I've never said that my English is superior to yours. I just say that the previous version of the lede was better. First of all, I recommend you to bring back the references (WP:LEADCITE) --Emesik (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

@Emesik: my remark about superior (= better) English was not directed at you, but at FT who commented lastly on my language as 'choppy' but himself (incorrectly) writes 'lede' where he probably means 'lead'. @FT and everyone: I was rather angry about behavior of FT on 12 June. If he took part of my answer on 12 June (which I strike now) as an attack, I apologize for it. @Emesik and FutureTrillionaire (FT): I've tried to politely say to you and everyone that discussing here with Emesik and with FT is kind of useless as long as they don't want to read my posting of 9 June where I wrote about mistakes in the lead (which they perhaps don't want to know about and therefore don't want to read about?). @Emesik: As I said before: I think a lead section usually doesn’t need many direct source references, if any. The present opening sentence [A] is a simple definition. Sentence [B] is easily to be checked in section 2.1; etc. The idea of a lead section is not to repeat and source again what is said lower in the article, but to shortly summarize the lower sections; in that case, direct references are unnecessary and disadvisable, or even forbidden, to my opinion. Any subject in Wikipedia is only one time presented in full detail, and that is the (only) place where those facts ought to be sourced/referenced. Other places in Wikipedia should then only direct to that place where that subject is treated in full length (like for example a lead section directs to the lower sections of its own article). If you agree with the text of the present lead, I don't know which references you would like to add to it, but go ahead and add references, and motivate that. If someone then strongly disagrees he might wish to remove some of them, again, ofcourse. --Corriebertus (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I asked FutureTrillionaire here (16June) and on his Talk page (16June) after which standards my explanatory posting of 9June here was ‘too long’. He refuses to answer, which proves that his “TL;DR... ” here on 12June was only a trick to prevent serious and polite constructive discussion to arise in this section. FT saw my edit 9June in the article SCW which did not please him, and therefore refused to read my motivation for it, because if you don’t read it it doesn’t exist (like ostrichs bury their heads in the sand when unpleasantness approaches), and then on 15June,16:30 reverted the unpleasing edit in the lead section of SCW. Behaviour probably at discord with the Wikipedia philosophy of good, serious, reasonable cooperation. Corriebertus (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

And ofcourse, I also asked Emesik here (16June), after which standards my posting of 9June might have been “too long”, and also he/she refuses to answer that. Also Emesik then apparently seems to simply not want to read motivations of edits that are displeasing to him/her, and accusingly call ‘too long’ what he/she simply doesn’t like. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:40, 2 July 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)

Block concerning this page

Sopher99 has just been blocked for sockpuppetry[1], which means that for example talk page votes here have been rigged (I7laseral voted frequently, and is a sock). So past votes can be considered unresolved now, and Sopher and co.'s votes ignored. FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the !votes are a big deal now because one sock's opinion wouldn't have really made much of a difference. However, I am also convinced that Alhanuty is mastering one or two accounts other than this guy, this guy and possibly some other IPs like the ones listed in Thepigthatisawesome's SPI. Anyone noticed something quacky recently? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Accusing others of being a sock is a big thing if you do suspect it then I would take it to the right place. Sock accounts tend to lurk around politically charged events such as these. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a big thing in my case, since Alhanuty accused me of meatpuppetry in the past. I just don't want to file an SPI with 2 or 3 IPs, I want all the eggs in one basket (+ the 24 IP already said he was Alhanuty [2] [3]). I'm just here to get the attention of resident editors who can help by looking through the archives to find something relevant. Nothing more. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• Sayer[4], his sockpuppet is as old as the conflict itself[5], so he just wanted to manipulate the truth from the start. FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

what is truth? as Pilate said to jesus - there's this - 'Over the past year, foreign intelligence officials had learned that Isis secured massive cashflows from the oilfields of eastern Syria, which it had commandeered in late 2012, and some of which it had sold back to the Syrian regime.[6] It was also known to have reaped windfalls from smuggling all manner of raw materials pillaged from the crumbling state, as well as priceless antiquities from archaeological digs.' - its ISIS and ASSAD - that's the truth - not ISIS or Assad - that's the truth. Sayerslle (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Parroting SOHR without question is pretty much working against the truth, and that's what all Western media has done the last few years. Haven't heard a coherent explanation of the current situation in Iraq from the "Assad controls ISIS" camp, but I bet you have one. Let me guess, Assad wants to scare Iraqi Shia into fighting for him or something like that? Or better yet, "ISIS and ISIl are separate organisations", as someone actually claimed! FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Assad most certainly does not control the ISIS, but it is- somewhat odd that despite the Syrian Air force having the capability to attack ISIS positions it has, until quite recently, refrained from doing so. I also regard talk about the corporate controlled western media to be utterly useless complaining especially since the media sources people like yourself present as alternatives to the western media tend to be Russian. As if the Kremlin's propaganda is somehow more reliable than Washington's propaganda.

I noticed another administrator remarked 'Bbb23: Are you sure about the indef on the master? I myself would have done something more like 2 weeks or 1 month. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠' [7]- that is a big difference - 2 weeks or indef. that ban on sopher is a disgrace really , and you driveling on about 'all Western media' is abject - as for Assad/ISIS - 'Syrian lawyers have documented how in the early weeks of the revolt, the regime let out Islamist prisoners from Saidnaya prison'- Sayerslle (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen puppetmasters get anything less than indef bans. So that would be a rare exception. Or maybe there really is an Assad/Wikipedia conspiracy! I hear they may have unblocked some "Assadists" back in 2011... FunkMonk (talk) 22:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Israel support the Insurgents

Sources from 22/6/14 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/israel-air-strikes-syria http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.600486

However since January 2013 Israel launch around more than 30 military attacks against Syrian Army position they never attack the Insurgents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 02:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I read through the guardian report - it said; The Israeli military has carried out air strikes on targets inside Syria, including a military headquarters, in response to a cross-border attack that left an Israeli teenager dead.

In all, Israel said it struck nine military targets inside Syria, and "direct hits were confirmed."

The targets were located near the site of Sunday's violence in the Golan Heights and included a regional military command centre and unspecified "launching positions." There was no immediate response from Syria.

In Sunday's attack, an Israeli civilian vehicle was struck by forces in Syria as it drove in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights.

'A teenage boy was killed and two other people were wounded in the first deadly incident along the volatile Israeli-Syrian front since Syria's civil war erupted more than three years ago.

'Israel has carefully monitored the fighting in Syria, but has generally kept its distance and avoided taking sides.'

'On several occasions, mortar shells and other types of fire have landed on the Israeli side of the de facto border, drawing limited Israeli reprisals.'

'Israel is also believed to have carried out several airstrikes on arms shipments it believed to be headed from Syria to Hezbollah militants in neighbouring Lebanon.'

'It was not immediately clear whether Syrian troops or one of the many rebel groups battling the government carried out Sunday's deadly attack in the Golan. Lerner said it was clear that the attack was intentional.'

'Israel has repeatedly said it holds the Syrian government responsible for any attacks emanating from its territory, regardless of who actually carries them out.'

'Israeli police identified the boy as Mohammed Karaka, 14, of the Arab village of Arraba in northern Israel. Local media said he had accompanied his father, the truck driver, to work.'

Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he spoke to the boy's father and sent his condolences. "Our enemies don't differentiate between Jews and non-Jews, adults and children," he told an international gathering of Jewish journalists.

'Netanyahu said in conflicts like Syria, where al-Qaida-inspired extremists are battling Iranian-backed Syrian troops, there is no good choice and it is best for Israel to sit back and let its enemies weaken each other.' the article seems not to say 'Israel supports the insurgents' as you headline this section. though I don't suppose what RS actually say interests you very much. Sayerslle (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Israel just killed ten Syrian soldiers. That's pretty significant. http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/136147-at-least-10-syrian-soldiers-killed-in-israeli-raids FunkMonk (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • well assad will have to respond if its 'pretty significant' I guess. it will give the Palestinians of yarmouk and the citizens of Aleppo a break if he thinks about some other priorities I suppose. - twitter latest -

The 47th @THE_47th · 3h

7 or 8 Israeli strikes ago Assad ws on Manar TV & said: "I confirm 2 u, any new Israeli strike on Syria will be met w/immediate retaliation"

Sayerslle (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• • • It will give ISIL an opportunity to take over half of Syria if the Syrian army gets dragged into war with Israel. Nice little Salafi-Zionist collaboration. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

may all your delusions come true. best stick to RS in the meantime and not let prophetic fantasies dictate content imo - don't forget twitter to stay abreast of what is happening in the present rather than apocalyptic future fantasies[8] and on assad salafist collaboration - he's a machiavel, you know it[[Sayerslle (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Twitter is just a rumour mill. You'd believe Assad lives on a Russian ship and that Maher Assad is a cripple from reading too much there. By the way, a brutal dictator is killing his own people in Ukraine, Egypt, and Yemen, why don't you go and have some arbitrary fun on those articles? Oh, I forgot, those are American allies. Not sexy enough? FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

@funkmok I don't believe assad lives ona Russian ship - you are again not AGF are you , - 'have some arbitrary fun'?? - I do believe you are protected by admins and are left free to insult people and never AGF , why I don't know, - a sfor your insane remarks on Ukraine - 'One Igor Girkin (aka Strelkov) heads up the Donbass People’s Militia. In an interview with Pravda, Girkin revealed that his troops had experience fighting for the Russian armed forces in Chechnya, Central Asia, Yugoslavia, Iraq and even Syria.' - you think putinRussia is the saintly savior of the world? omg. Sayerslle (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Lol, I'm "protected by admins"? I've been blocked several times in the past, I simply learned not to edit war. Paranoid much? FunkMonk (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

These are sources from January 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/world/middleeast/syrian-weapons-center-said-to-be-damaged.html?_r=0 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/01/31/israels-strike-on-syria-as-a-dress-rehearsal-for-conflict-with-iran/

Since January 2013 still today Israel military doing military attack against Syrian army sites they never attack the insurgents only the regime since the conflict star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by without drama just need to Put the Israeli flag on Armament support for Position --LogFTW (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC) LogFTW (talk • contribs) 14:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. The latest incident was a minor border clash with the Syrian army. It was unrelated to the rebels. Israel does not support groups that wants to see the destruction of Israel.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

FSA spokespeople have proposed cooperation with Israel plenty of times. The insurgents in Syria have done nothing to harm Israeli interests, on the contrary. FunkMonk (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

reuters - [9] - says mohammed qaraqara was murdered by assad regime - (and refers in the article to 'militant groups hostile to the jewish state', meaning the rebel groups in the area -) - Sayerslle (talk) 11:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Which hardly includes the FSA. FunkMonk (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

There no was a "minor border" clash according by Israel were air strikes attacking the 'the headquarters of several Syrian army units' these attacks are concerned and periodic since January 2013

• Attack on Syrian Army installation January 31 2013 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/31/us-syria-israel-attack-idUSBRE90U0TX20130131 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/world/middleeast/syrian-weapons-center-said-to-be-damaged.html?_r=0 http://rt.com/news/syria-israel-airstrike-aftermath-339/
• March 24 2013 http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/24/us-syria-israel-idUSBRE92N06020130324
• May 5 2013 http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/syrian-report-israel-bombs-outskirts-of-damascus-for-second-time-in-recent-days/2013/05/05/8d48a818-b570-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_story.html http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_05_06/Israel-strike-on-Syria-killed-at-least-15-soldiers-NGO/
• May 28 2013 http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2013/04/28/rebels-israel-bombed-syrian-chemical-site.html http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/23816/Default.aspx?archive=article_title
• June 3 2013 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/178140#.U6ltNbG9ZrI
• June 28 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/170350#.U6lpE7G9ZrI
• July 7 http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Report-Israel-launched-air-strike-on-Syrian-arms-depot-from-Turkish-military-base-319858
• July 14 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/world/middleeast/israel-airstrike-targeted-advanced-missiles-that-russia-sold-to-syria-us-says.html?_r=0
• November 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24767571
• January 27 2014 http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Syrian-opposition-Israeli-jets-bomb-missile-launchers-in-Latakia-339465
• March 19 2014 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/19/israel-bombs-syrian-military-sites_n_4990330.html

And these news trikes so there are no "border clashed" since 2013 star Israel doing concerted Attack against Syrian Army, Israel NEVER attack the Insurgents only the Syrian troops

Lest see =

• Israeli military hospital threaten the Insurgents Netanyahu visited the Insurgents wounded http://www.timesofisrael.com/syrian-rebel-leader-thanks-pm-for-standing-by-wounded/

So we have =

• Direct Israeli Military support since January 2013 Attack on Syrian Army positions and help the Insurgents gain ground
• Concerted military attacks since January 2013
• Many Syrians soldiers die in Israeli border this zone is considered a stronger positions from FSA / Al Qaeda https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOtK1xgAbgU
• No military support let the insurgent wounded get in Israel held Golan and threaten them.

A LOT sources confirmed that we are not talking if the level from Israel support to Insurgency in Syria is too much or poor but the Israeli support to Armed insurgency in Syria proved be real

How many Military attack Launch US against Syrian Army? 0 How many Military attack Launch Saudi Arabia against Syrian Army? 0 How many Military attack Launch Qatar against Syrian Army? 0 How many Military attack Launch Turkey against Syrian Army? Severals but less than Israel

How many Military attack Launch Israel against Syrian Army? Severals more than Turkey.

Why US, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia Flag deserved be in Support for the Insurgents and no Israel?

Israel flag should be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 12:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

in the very first article you linked to at the top of this thread it says Israel has carefully monitored the fighting in Syria, but has generally kept its distance and avoided taking sides.

On several occasions, mortar shells and other types of fire have landed on the Israeli side of the de facto border, drawing limited Israeli reprisals.

Israel is also believed to have carried out several airstrikes on arms shipments it believed to be headed from Syria to Hezbollah militants in neighbouring Lebanon. - thats what you[10] linked to. thats how RS are reporting things. this is likely because it bears close resemblance to reality. for unreal-ler views you should read globalresearch/russiatoday/mintpress etc and there youll see stuff like ghouta chemical attacks was Saudi/turkey/anybodybutassadregime kind of thing and then you'll be happy. Sayerslle (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Hezbollah no fight the anti government Insurgents in Syria too Hezbollah and Syrian State are ALLIED-

Hezbollah is PART of the conflict and allied from Syrians troops.

So Israel claim attack Hezbollah and Syrian Army both - Insurgents in Syria (FSA, Al Qaeda, Islamic Front) Fight Hezbollah and Syrian Army both...... Common I link more than 20+ Sources who confirms Israel attack many times the Syrian troops is time to put on the article a Israel support

• Israeli state claim and doing attacks against Syrian State many times
• Syrian state claim Israel support the Insurgents

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/178084

• Israel only attack the Syrian troops never the Insurgents--LogFTW

Just put the Israeli Flag in Armament Support because MANY sources confirmed that http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.600486 ..(talk) 14:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

its just the infoboxlogftw , its meant to present the main players I believe - maybe the infobox should have ISIS in its own sphere - look at this tweet -

'Aymenn J Al-Tamimi @ajaltamimi · Jun 24

Always baffles me how ISIS must be supposed to be an 'agent of/colluding with' X, Y and Z. ISIS is its own thing, people' - and ISIS seems to be about something like the reconquest of Jerusalem or something, a caliphate? encompassing parts of Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Jordan - ISIS should be separated maybe. its about its own thing.Sayerslle (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Nusra, Islamic Front and Muslim Brotherhood want a Caliphate as well. What's the difference? FunkMonk (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

extent maybe? do the IF just want to build an Islamic state in Syria? BBC -'Isis is fighting Free Syrian Army groups as well as the Islamic Front, a coalition of Syrian rebel factions which also wants to build an Islamic state in Syria.' -whatever, it seems regular now that maps and such distinguish between ISIS and rebels - eg [11]Sayerslle (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Remember when FSA fought with Nusra? It's the same, just turf-wars among brutal gangs. Even back then FSA blamed Nusra for being an invention of the regime. But seems these guys are not afraid of sounding like broken records. Now the weaker, mainly Syrian gangs are just trying to stick together, because ISIS gets all the foreigners, and therefore continues to grow in membership. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

ah yes, brutal gangs versus the civilized regime - like civilized barrel bombs from SAA helicopters on aleppo -[12] - (and you don't mind the lavrov/putin gang sounding like broken records I notice even when its monstrous lies about ghouta) - sednaya release worked out well for your machiavel Sayerslle (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC) 16:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Who said the regime wasn't brutal? All warring armies are. And funny you should mention the prisoner thing yet again. Several released Guantanamo prisoners ended up as leaders of ISIS. Does this mean that the US and Assad were working together to discredit the "revolution"? How far does the conspiracy go? FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

The Haaretz article linked does not say anything about Isreael supporting the rebels. In fact, the article says that the IDF said "We will not tolerate attacks on Israeli citizens or on IDF troops. Anyone who tries to disrupt our lives will pay a heavy price, whether it is the Syrian army or terrorist groups operating on Syrian territory." Clearly Israel is not involved in the Syrian civil war and it is not taking sides.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

^ Israel only attack Syrian Army or Hezbollah never others armed groups - Israel never bombing a single time Al Qaeda, FSA positions in more than three years of conflict, Israel did (According by Israeli press) at least 30 attacks against Syrian Army position since January 2013 we can considered it as a clear very solid evidence from Israeli military support for anti regime insurgent.

What are the fear complexes to add the Israeli flag on "Armament support" for the Insurgents after MANY evidences confirmed it ?

I no understand, seems it's a complexes by some users here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 10:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I regard claims of Israeli involvement on either of this civil war to be propaganda. If Israel has any strategic interest in this conflict it is that it wants it to continue for as long as possible. As the Israelis themselves put it: "on one side you have Hezbollah and Iran, and on the other side you have Al-Qaeda and the Islamists. So all we have to do is sit back and watch the fireworks." If anything the Israelis are trying to aid BOTH sides of this conflict. Claiming that your enemies are in league with the Zionists and that you are the champion who liberate Palestine is one of the common political tactics in the Arab world and it should not surprise anyone that both the Syrian Opposition and the Government accuse the other of being Zionist agents and have "evidence" supporting those charges. What is surprising is that people here actually think that such claims amount to anything other than typical Middle Eastern politics.

Yet the fact is that Israel has attacked Syria multiple times, but not the "rebels" even once, but have actually treated rebel fighters in the Golan. Furthermore, Israel is allied to the main backers of the rebels, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. These facts speak for themselves. Furthermore, Israel wants the weakening of Iran and its allies above all, which is what the "rebels" are doing. FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You do not understand my point. You seem to think that the Israeli's favor the opposition running Syria. Israel's goal is to have the war go on for as long as possible. Given that the Government currently has the upper hand against the Free Syrian Army that would logically mean that missions against the Government are necessary to balance the playing-field and preserve a bloody stalemate. Relavant to this conversation is the fact that Hamas seems to have renounced Assad's Government, about a year ago the Jerusalem Post featured this report. The comments featured below are quite similar to the argument we are having here <http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Hamas-reportedly-training-Syrian-rebels-in-Damascus-308795>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.238.26.73 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hezbollah flag on infobox + show and hide button

Hello! Instead of the current yellow/golden banner to represent Hezbollah in the infobox, why not use the actual flag? I remember I saw the flag in old Hezbollah-related articles. Also: what's the purpose of hiding the foreign support with a 'hide' button? I know this article has a lot of people pushing their POV and introducing changes to make a certain side of the conflict look better. As a casual reader of Wikipedia I got to say that such POV fights and edit warring stain the good image of Wikipedia. I think the infobox would be more informative without those subtle 'hidden' informations. I mean, someone please edit it so that the infobox shows who supports who without the need of clicking on the 'show' button. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.177.52.34 (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The design is not free, so can only be used as fair use on few pages. FunkMonk (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Impact: Child Soldiers

Time to add the truth:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/23/world/meast/hrw-child-soldiers/index.html?hpt=wo_c2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.18.64 (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Siege of Aleppo Hospital and Aleppo prison deserved his own article

You can star with that http://trpintel.myfotojournal.com/2014/feb/09/battle-field-syria-aleppo-central-prison/ http://trpintel.myfotojournal.com/2014/feb/06/fall-al-kindi-hospital-rubble/ http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/04/aleppo-prison-siege-lifted-by-saa.html http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/02/second-post-syrian-army-crushes-terrorist-attack-on-central-prison-in-aleppo-and-derails-lying-british-narrative.html http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=152821&cid=23&fromval=1 http://www.almanar.com.lb/english/adetails.php?eid=134396&cid=23&fromval=1

YES I KNOW IS PRO REGIME SOURCES but you can do clock here for found more sources https://www.google.com/search?q=aleppo+prison+siege&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls={moz:distributionID}:{moz:locale}:{moz:official} --LogFTW (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

UK support the insurgents

Mr Hague also announced that the UK would increase support to Syria's moderate opposition and urged other countries to do the same. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28036470 --LogFTW (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So, unlike most thinking people, Mr Hague seems unconcerned about the dangers of arming, aiding and supporting the rebels in Syria. Or is it that only he can tell the nice FSA from the nasty ISIS? Then again, by aiding the 'good' rebels - and undermining the Assad government - do not the UK and US regimes bear any responsibility for creating the conditions in which terrorism can thrive? 92.16.152.164 (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No fantasies in the article please

I believe visitors come to Wikipedia’s page 'Syrian Civil War' to read facts about that war, not personal fantasies or interpretations of one or two Wiki contributors. The edit in the lead section of 15June2014,16:30, was unmotivated, and is therefore now reverted. Read in my explanation on 9June2014 what is wrong with assertions reintroduced in the lead section on 15June2014 such as: known as… , armed conflict…, between forces… , started as civil uprisings… , Arab Spring… , within the framework… , began in March… , in Daraa… , April nationwide… , quell… , fired on… , sieges… , developed into… , asymmetrical…, clashes in many towns… --Corriebertus (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

These are not fantasies but a well-sourced text which you want to throw away. You are welcome to edit the article, but please provide references. Any unsourced material in such controversial article will be challenged and removed sooner or later, no matter how accurate it is.

To put it simply: If you replace sourced text with unsourced one, I will personally revert it. --Emesik (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Mr/Mrs Emesik, I’ve refuted and disproven what you bring forward again today (‘throw away’, ‘references’, ‘fantasies’, ‘unsourced’), already once or several times, in section Talk:Syrian Civil War#Correcting lead section Syrian Civil War (9–30June), where I’ve also announced (16June) that ‘discussing’ with you on these matters seems useless because you simply don’t listen to arguments that don’t please you and even openly and shamelessly refuse to read contributions that you expect to be probably displeasing you. --Corriebertus (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't get it. Back your edits with references. Second paragraph of WP:V will explain it to you. --Emesik (talk) 18:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I agree that the lede requires many changes, but unsourced text is useless as a base of anything better. --Emesik (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Color Revolts and US involvement in maintaining civil unrest

Given that US involvement in supporting Color Revolts is well recorded, and considering the evidence that - far from 'freedom-loving' home grown protesters - it the US that helped start and maintain the Syrian Civil War, would not section on this be helpful in understanding the conflict? 92.20.224.168 (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

if you have material you think is important for the article, and reliable sources, then you add it to the article, I believe that is the idea of Wikipedia. Sayerslle (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• It has been well known for years that the US funded opposition groups and their propaganda long before 2011. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/wikileaks-us-secretly-backed-syria-opposition/ and http://gulfnews.com/news/region/libya/us-document-reveals-cooperation-between-washington-and-brotherhood-1.1349207 FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

foreign plots. I mean I believe mossadeq in iran was targeted , i'm sure the world is a very cynical place - (except the puresystematic torture Assad regime,[13] and saint Vladimir Putin Russia regime and (not at all shiapriestriddenIran , they don't act other than in a saintly way of course , never any chicanery there obviously) - -so just add what you believe is important to add with RS. just do it with a bit of honesty in your mind and ask yourself - are you being critical minded in a non biased wp:NEUTRAL way or are you out to highlight any POINT-y material that exists anywhere that supports a assad regime narrative that you embrace- assad regime hafez-bashar always argues its only critics are all foreign puppets, no? Sayerslle (talk) 23:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the peaceful uprisings in Bahrain and Eastern Saudia are the only real foreign plots, right Sayer? Evil Iranian Shia plots! Not to forget the uprising in Eastern Ukraine, where civilians are being mercilessly shelled. But I guess lives are worth nothing when they are anti-western. Oh, and if the dictator is Saudi funded, as in Egypt. Not a single noise from you about those, Sayer. FunkMonk (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

No we are not arguing that only pro-western rebellions are legitimate, what we are arguing is that just as the west has there own bias the Russians do too and that parroting the Kremlin's propaganda is no different than parroting Washington's propaganda. Your entire view of this war seems to revolve around two ideas: firstly that all western sources are biased and secondly that only Russian sources are objective. No noise comes from Sayer about anti-western uprisings, however the ONLY noise that comes from YOU about pro-western uprisings is that they are all a foreign plot devised by the evil westerners. To this accusation you declare that your sources are unbiased Russian propaganda is more truthful than western propaganda. Why? Because Russian propaganda told you so!

U.S. secretly backed Syrian opposition groups, cables released by WikiLeaks show

According to the Washington Post on April 17, 2011, the US State Department has “secretly financed Syrian political opposition groups and related projects, including a satellite TV channel that beams anti-government programming into the country, according to previously undisclosed diplomatic cables.” This is part of a growing body-of-evidence, showing that what happened in Syria is the same tactic used in the US backed 'Color' Revolutions. Showing that stories of brave home-grown protesters are far from the whole picture. And that, far from any 'Syrian Spring', this was a false spring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.152.164 (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we should have a kind of background article to explain stuff like that. FunkMonk (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Al Nusra Front strength

Can Someone please edit Al Nusra front strength with this newer source

strength: 5,000–6,000

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/06/11/why-is-jabhat-al-nusra-no-longer-useful-to-turkey

Jumada (talk) 21:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Syria-Iraq Civil War

Maybe it's time for either this article to be expanded to include the conflict in Iraq, or for another broader article encompassing both? (Here is an infobox I made. Mainly because I wanted to practice making infoboxes, but it could be used as an early template I guess.)

Syria-Iraq Civil War
Part of Arab Spring and Iraq War
As of June 2014. Dark Red Controlled by Iraqi Government Light Red Controlled by Syrian Government Grey Controlled by Islamic State Green Controlled by the Syrian Opposition Light Yellow Controlled by Iraqi Kurds Dark Yellow Controlled by Syrian Kurds
Date 15th March 2011 - Present Location Syria and Iraq Status Ongoing
Belligerents
Iraqi Government Syrian Government Iran Hezbollah Al-Abbas Brigade File:Pflp-gc-logo.JPGPFLP-GC Special Groups Badr Brigades Mukhtar Army Supported by Russia North Korea United States Partially Allied With Iraqi Kurdistan Syrian Kurdistan File:Logo of the Syriac Military Council.jpg Syriac Military Council Sutoro	Islamic Front Free Syrian Army Al-Nusra Front File:Syria Revolutionaries Front Logo.gif Syria Revolutionaries Front File:Army of Mujahedeen logo.png Army of Mujahedeen File:Hazzm Movement Logo.jpgHarakat Hazm Sham Legion Supported by Qatar Saudi Arabia Turkey United States Libya Partially Allied With Islamic State Ansar al-Islam Iraqi Ba'ath Party Loyalists Free Iraqi Army Hamas of Iraq Supported by Saudi Arabia
Commanders and leaders
Nouri al-Maliki Bashar al-Assad Qasem Soleimani Hassan Nasrallah File:Pflp-gc-logo.JPG Ahmed Jibril Abu Mustafa al-Sheibani Partially Allied With Massoud Barzani Salih Muslim Muhammad	Ahmed Issa al-Sheikh Abdul-Ilah al-Bashir Abu Mohammad al-Golani File:Syria Revolutionaries Front Logo.gif Jamal Maarouf Partially Allied With Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Abu Hashim al Ibrahim Izzat Ibrahim ad-Douri
Strength
Iraqi Government 600,000 Syrian Government 300,000 Badr Brigade 10,000 Hezbollah 9,000 Al-Abbas Brigade 7,000 Special Groups 7,000 Iran 800 Iraqi Kurdistan 30,000	Islamic Front 60,000 Free Syrian Army 50,000 Al-Nusra Front 8,000 Islamic State 20,000 Iraqi Ba'ath Party Loyalists 10,000
Casualties and losses
Total > 200,000

• There is this: 2014 Northern Iraq offensive. A nw article about both would just be redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Article length issue

Hi everyone, I've been editing this article and I have found that one of the key issues in the article being too long is that the conflict is described almost day by day. This is too much detail! To reduce the length of the article, much of this day-by-day description needs to be replaced by summaries of the main points. The day-by-day description of events could be transferred to new articles.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the article would be much improved if 2.3 to 2.15 were trimmed and dumped into a timeline article. Gazkthul (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)