Talk:Syrian Civil War/Archive 31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 25 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 35

IHS Jane's - half of rebels are jihadists or Islamists

Article's a bit of a mess, so I'm not immediately clear what to do with this... but this analysis by IHS Jane's needs to be mentioned. Syria: nearly half rebel fighters are jihadists or hardline Islamists, says IHS Jane's report. Podiaebba (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Free Syrian Army: 50,000[4] - 80,000[24] Syria Syrian Islamic Liberation Front: 37,000[4] (by May 2013) Syrian Islamic Front: 13,000[4] (by May 2013) Al-Nusra Front: 6,000[4] (by June 2013) Foreign Mujahideen: 10,000

37,000 + 13,000 + 6,000 + 10,000 = 66,000

While the Fsa makes up 50,000 - 80,000.

So its already in the article. Sopher99 (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a source in the article, and the current sourcing from multiple sources seems to confuse independent estimates with groups' own claims without distinguishing them. And I don't see any discussion of different estimates or how things have changed over time. This needs to be improved. Podiaebba (talk) 16:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
It should be inserted as a source, but not treated as definitive. The group that is advancing this estimate is notable, but it's just one estimate and shouldn't be regarded as the final word. But it's absolutely germane to this article and wasn't in there before, contra Sopher99. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The report states that there is a total of around 100.000 fighters, fragmented into as many as 1,000 bands, which are battling the Syrian Army and you are still putting the FSA numbers between 50,000-80,000?. Those numbers btw are according to the FSA's leadership. If there are 100,000 fighters, fragmented into 1,000 bands, and half of them being jihadists, fundamentalists, islamist etc. then every single fighter in the other "moderate" group would have to be a member of the FSA, just so we would get to the cca 50,000 number. Just to think that, we would have to be very optimistic, if not naïve. If there would be 50,000-80,000 FSA in Syria then they would definetly be top dog among the groups fighting the Syrian Army and that clearly isn't the case on the field. I mean, the 10,000 jihadists force is killing FSA commanders at will and they are the one controlling the north of the country. What does the "80,000 strong" FSA control then?

  • "The stark assessment, to be published later this week, accords with the view of Western diplomats estimate that less than one third of the opposition forces are "palatable" to Britain, while American envoys put the figure even lower." - FSA is "palatable" to Britain and the US, so I guess you need to look the FSA strength in that max one third or even less. 15,000-30,000 would be far more realistic, considering what is happening on the field of battle. The hardest fighting of the Syrian army is against jihadists and fundamentalists.Ratipok (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course its not in the article. This from it '... puts the number of rebel forces at around 100,000. And half of this number are combatants on an ideological crusade against the west, who are partially or fully affiliated with Al Qaeda'. Needs updating in a NPOV manner Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Business Insider breakdown of the rebel numbers

Lister's analysis is the main source for this breakdown. Additionally, the "15 other groups" are part of SILF. You've also misidentified the umbrella groups like SILF and SIF as on par with their consituent groups. I've tweaked your presentation accordingly, hope you don't mind. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
No problem at all. PS: Shouldn't we update the opposition strength section on the main page? It seems the current numbers are old and outdated considering the facts on the field. Ratipok (talk) 12:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Fragmented opposition

I'm seeing a sharp upturn in reports of infighting between the FSA, al-Nusra, and ISIL over the past few weeks: [2] [3] [4] [5] We may want to consider revisiting the infobox sides if this becomes a trend. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any action needs to be taken, they'll keep on being allies, unless the West pays them to do otherwise. The FSA will never be able to speak up to the Salafist factions, they'll just keep quiet and take the pain, they have no choice, they're too weak and too few. Note that they always downplay these clashes, because they really need the Salafists if they want to accomplish anything at all. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
That's a pretty healthy dose of conspiracy-tinged original research. Any actual suggestions based on what reliable sources are reporting is happening in Syria? -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
You may have missed it during your absence, but that's the good Father Funk's specialty. Anyway, a lot of analysts seem to be taking a "wait and see" stance, and I'd recommend we do the same. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
This is not about "conspiracy", it is simply looking at precedents. It has happened tonnes of times before, no indication that it will change. Changing anything here now without any basis would be unfounded in sources and original research. As for "original research: "But at least one analyst of the rebel movement said it was unlikely that such words would lead to a severing of ties between the groups, if for no other reason than the U.S.-backed rebels were dependent on the Islamic State’s battlefield prowess and its fighters’ zeal to defeat Assad’s better-equipped army.
“I don’t see the Azaz clashes as evidence of an imminent ‘FSA vs. ISIS’ war,” he said by email. “Notably, Liwa al Tawheed’s commanders still value ISIS as a military asset and were accordingly pushing for a compromise in Azaz, even as many on-the-ground supporters and lower-rank fighters are much more suspicious of ISIS.”
Tamimi also said that another FSA-affiliated group, the Farouq Brigades, which battled Islamic State fighters last week in the town of al Bab in Aleppo province, was likely to want to preserve its contacts with Islamic State fighters. Farouq leaders, he said, “stress they are brothers of ISIS in Islam, and will not accept a non-Islamic or non-Shariah-based constitution.” FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
More or less yep. Tawhid's Abdul Jabbar al-Oqaidi regards fighting against government forces as the top priority and ISIS as a "reality on the ground" [6], and his brigade's mediation in the current scuffles seems a continuation of that position (my OR, but take it as it is). At any rate, we shouldn't go around fussing about the infobox until the dust settles on this one. Lines are being drawn, sure, but some actors are moving quickly to try and erase them. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
We might consider not singling out a specific group for not getting along with the others, in that case. Doesn't seem to be limited to any one particular rebel faction. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

And my, how news breaks. Jabhat al-Nusra, Liwa' al-Tawhid, Ahrar al-Sham, Suqur al-Sham, Liwa' al-Islam, Nur al-Din Zanki Brigades, and a few other outfits have cosigned a statement disowning the SNC and proclaiming Shariah law as the only source of legislation after the election of moderate Ahmad Tu'mah as opposition PM. All this going about while there's a supposed "war on ISIS". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Huge news, if accurate all the significant "moderate Islamist" factions (with the apparent exception of Farouq Brigades) have joined with the Hardline Islamists of Ahrar al-sham and the Jihadists of al Nusra on a common platform. Noteably ISIS is absent from this new Islamic Coaltion. Gazkthul (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Absent, but also not mentioned in any capacity. If anything, the drift from "secular/moderate rule" toward Salafi fundamentalism bodes well for the Islamic State—provided it plays its cards right. Anyway, it's a fluid situation right now. Stay tuned... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Some good RS analysis: [7]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Bad news for overambitious western backers, but hardly changes anything on the ground. Other than alienating even more secular Sunnis, that is. FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Removal of city control map

Why was this removed but less important maps added like the map that only shows Kurdish cities? Lonjers (talk) 04:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The map was not “removed”. On 17 Sep, it was decided to divide the article because it was too long. So a large part of the article ended up in Timeline of the Syrian civil war. That part contained the map. So the map is there. Tradedia (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh cool glad it stilll exists and I support the split up. I just think that it is a much more important map than many of the ones currently shown on the main page Lonjers (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Riad al-Asaad K.I.A.

Founder of Free Syrian Army, Riad al-Asaad, was killed during Syrian Arab Army military operation in Latakia. Syrian Arab Army attacked against rebel senior officers meeting and aside from Asaad, they killed many other rebel officers. Please someone, actualize infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Riad al- Assad was wounded in action, not killed. There has been no report of Asaad's death, minus a Press TV article claiming that he was "probably killed". In the infobox, it has been listed that he was wounded in action (WIA). If there is any update that he has been killed, feel free to post. If not, this issue is closed. UncappingCone64 (talk) 16:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

USA support Give money, Armed and Trained the Rebels Groups in Syria Sources

US Support the Rebels there are some a few sources about it — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

This is already covered in the article, see Syrian civil war#Support for the opposition. Were you proposing any specific improvements? VQuakr (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
But how well? Remember the neutrality of the article is disputed 09:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
USA is supporting Rebels via Saudia Arabiya and Qatar. USA is not supporting Rebels directly. SpidErxD (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Mr Obama said that a 50-man cell, believed to have been trained by US special forces in Jordan, was making its way across the border into Syria. New York Times. But the USA is "not supporting Rebels directly"? (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Lol, fifty men? Might as well send in a donkey with bombs strapped on it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Fifty Special Forces trainers, while unlikely to win the war, will have an impact in maintaining the level of killing and suffering. Anyway, the real issue is that the US stated it was not directly supporting the Rebels. (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Syrian Islamic Liberation Front are Islamist(sectarian) or not?

Syrian Islamic Liberation Front(SILF) and Ahfad al-Rasul Brigade are Islamists(i mean sectarian). Free Syrian Army(FSA) is non-sectarian(FSA declare themselves non-sectarian). According to Reuters and PolicyMic and AmericaProgress.

FSA, SILF, SIF, independent brigades, regional military councils all are part of SMC according to American Progress .org.SpidErxD (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

SILF is moderate Islamist (ikhwani-style). SIF is radical-Salafist and is only very weakly linked to the SMC (if you'll bother to look at the report carefully)—in fact, it coordinates probably even more closely with al-Qaida (Ahrar al-Sham and Nusra/ISIS are currently running the show in Raqqa after expelling Ahfad al-Rasul). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Why does it matter if they're Islamists or not when concerning the presentation of the infobox? Infobox shows who are friends and who are enemies. It does not matter what their ideology is. FSA and SILF are both incorporated in the SMC and cooperate, even though they have different ideologies.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Whats the point of dividing them by ideology? Firstly, that is common practise on several articles accross wikipedia. Secondly, Why do you insist on deleting all mention of sectarianism, both on the template and on the article? Do you need to see individual journalists in person before you believe a news story or something? Pass a Method talk 14:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I recognize that sectarianism is a big part of the conflict, but the purpose of a military infobox is to show alliances and enemies. It doesn't matter what their ideology is. The FSA and SILF cooperate despite different ideologies. Seperating them with a heading "Sunni mjahideen" suggests a lack of cooperation between the FSA and the Jihadists. For a compromise, I think we should the "Rebels" heading to "Sunni rebels" and remove the "Sunni mjahideen" sub-heading. Are you okay with this?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Off course the ideology matters. All the major news stations say that if Assad is topped it won't be the end of the war since theres so many factions with totally opposing views. Perpective matters Pass a Method talk 15:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
You're not understanding. Ideology alone does not matter in an infobox. Actual alliances does.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
It does matter if these groups define themselves by a particular ideology. This is particulary true when certain groups overlap thus making it easier to group them in categories. Pass a Method talk 16:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Alliance should be the primary dividing criterion. Ideology often leads to alliance, so it is indirectly used in the infobox. Thus, Salafi groups like SIF are grouped with al-Qaida, whereas moderates like SILF get grouped with the "FSA". Grouping moderates with radicals, however, like Spiderman seems to want to do, is just stupid. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I support going back to the original grouping, with separating FSA/SILF and others with a diving line. The argument that SILF is Islamist and should be grouped with the Jihadists rather than the FSA is flawed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
FSA are freedom fighters(According to US media "They are non-sectarian and they want democratic govt. in Syria"), FSA use this flag. Whereas Many Rebels are Sunni-Jihadist(sectarian) and they want Islamic Shariah in Syria and they use black flag of Jihad. Both (FSA and Sunni-Jihadist) want to overthrow Assad but FSA(non sectarian) want demcratic govt and Jihadist(sectarian) want Shariah in Syria.SpidErxD (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
That's one of the most depressingly simple-minded reductions of the conflict I've seen. Not even worth discussing. Read more, talk less. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
The separation has been in place for over a year. So there needed a consensus to remove it. Such a consensus has not been achieved. At the contrary, I see most people here wanting to “go back to the original grouping, with separating…” I also support this. An infobox should give readers unfamiliar with the conflict a few basic simple take away points. The 2 groups convey to the unfamiliar reader the axis (or dimension) along which the different organizations are situated, from more moderate/SMC connected to less moderate/SMC connected. Where the line is drawn is always a difficult call, however, we should approximate as best we can. Tradedia (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Some related background information. The British Home Secretary (Theresa May) has warned that extremists “of a Jihadi mindset” are using the Syrian civil war “as a nursery” before returning to Britain as trained terrorists. She made clear that they are receiving training in the Syrian, and then returning home. May added that many of them are considered to be possible terrorists by UK security services. While members of the Syrian opposition had been called “foreign fighters,” May viewed them as “potential terrorists, some of whom will be of a jihadi mindset.” (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

War article that includes everything but war itself

So I was wondering if there have been any new developments in this war that I may have missed, and came to read this glorious article. I found only this: "Following military crackdowns, many soldiers defected to protect protestors. Many protestors also began to take up arms. The conflict has escalated into a civil war." Confused, I thought that I must have missed the real section about course of war, but after navigating around sections like "Socioeconomics", "Palestinians", "Video footage" and "Crime wave", I could only conclude that those 3 short sentences were literally all that there was about course of war. I even checked article history to make sure that it wasn't result of some recent vandalism, but no, everything looked fine. This is amazing, actual course of war that is practically always core of any war article, has been reduced to a one-liner! War article that includes everything else but not the war itself! But at least you guys managed to keep all that top importance background information in! Easily the worst war article in wikipedia, no contest. If you still feel confused, then you can go to World War II article and try to imagine it without whole "Course of the war" section. That is exactly what has happened here.--Staberinde (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I also am quite unhappy with the recent changes removing the entire summary of the course of the war. If the problem was that the article was too long, the solution should have been to begin another summarization effort, as has been done before. It can be seen at the timeline article (where the information was moved to) that the last three subsections of the moved information are disproportionally large, so the summarization should be focused there.
I propose that, after an effort to neutrally summarize the information as much as possible, the information be returned to where it belongs, this article. --Philpill691 (talk) 22:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I also agree and am of the opinion that the course of the war section has been too much shortened. We have a bunch of info on the background to the war and the consequences of the war but on the course of the war itself almost nothing. EkoGraf (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You guys should have said something when the proposal to split that section was being discussed: Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 30#The article is (much) too long; let’s put § 2 (Events) in a sub-article Anyways, I agree that the article should have a summary of the conflict to date. I recommend moving the content from the Timeline of the Syrian civil war article to here, and turn that timeline "article" back into a disambiguation page.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

why is this protected?

WP:PROTECT is thataway if you have concerns about protection policy in general. Otherwise, you can use Template:Edit semi-protected

I want to make a few amendments to the propaganda style language used in this article and it seems that this is not possible on a site hosted in a democratic country with law allowing free speech, is the USA/UK actually democratic? I am a british subject so evidently I have not the correct human rights in this capacity. Who does wikipedia work for? Is it the crown? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

This is protected because this is more or less propaganda. All main points are coming from the mainstream talking points, eg. there's a picture labelled "U.S. non-lethal aid to Syrian opposition forces, May 2013". Non-lethal, my ass. Or the fact that this article separates the "Free" "Syrian" "Army" (quotes on each word are justified :) ), and the "mujahedeen". These forces are hardly distinguishable off course, and in any other article the mujahedeen would be called al-Queda w/o hesitation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Look we have to accept agents of powers with vested interests in the Syrian Rebel cause slash USA slash Saudi Arabia slash Israel etc, edit here. Its a verifiable fact intel agencies of the above countries pay bloggers to push their agenda google this re Israel uni students. Why not here too? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
To the first and second poster who sound like they may be new to the site: Welcome to Wikipedia. I'd recommend you familiarize yourself with some of Wiki's policy regarding content in articles. Some things that may not make sense in the way things are handled here can be easily understood by consulting policy documents. As these articles are inevitably edited by numerous people with different perspectives, having clear expectations for using reputable sources, etc is necesary to ensure the final product reflects as little POV as possible. If you think something is missing, find reputable sources and be bold and add it. If you disagree with content, bring specific recommendations to the Talk page. Keep in mind, while wiki strives to be as neutral as possible, there is not, nor should be, equal time and space given to all opinions about a subject. We only reflect what the reputable sources say, and aim to do so in a manner that's roughly proportional to the weight of a given position. If you feel strongly about an issue, keep in mind this is not a forum. There are plenty of places to have sprited discussions about these topics on the internet. This Talk page is solely for specific changes and recommendations abotu article content. The more specific, the more likely people will engage with you. Rants are just short of useless without constructive recommendations. Keep in mind, your personal "truth" may not jibe with others. in the end, it doesn't matter what anyone here thinks is the truth...we are not here to make truth, we are here to report what the RSs say. That's all. If you have an issue with these policies, wiki may not be the best place for you to express yourself. (talk) 22:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the second poster. You have to note the following: I'm NOT "new to the site", and I really don't need your lecturing. I pretty well know the process how scientific consensus is formed, and I know Wikipedia is trying to look like it is guided by the scientific process (but is failing all the time miserably). So please stop this lecturing, you are insulting me, and insulting others is against the guidelines. As for the article we're talking about, you have to note that it is very very far from what we can call "peer reviewed", and frankly it is mostly propaganda. To illustrate this, just check out the section headed "thermobaric weapons". It cites four sources in a single paragraph, two from the US, one from the zionist entity and the BBC. These are hardly independent sources of course. The last sentence is a downright lie, it refers to a strange and most likely faked incident, you are kindly referred to the source to check it out yourself. The sentence says as a matter of fact that government used napalm. Even the BBC source doesn't say that. The whole article is like this. So, this is why I call this propaganda. If you really want to see a balanced and nuanced approach, please go to and please stop insulting me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, despite many such remarks, this article still "protected". Why? (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The Syrian Civil war article is protected due to pertaining to a controversial issue. Auto confirmed users can edit protected articles, and it is not difficult to become auto confirmed. UncappingCone64 (talk) 16:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Because nobody gives two shits about batshit conspiracy theories as to Wikipedia's "sooper seekrit agenda". Hop off. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC) (registered member of The Illuminati™)

Just because some have a healthly disrespect of US policy, does not mean they are interested in the "Illuminati" or any such rubbish. Then again, as with Syria, the US does seem to be setting up a New World Dis-Order. So, when the issue that led to this article being "protested" is settled, will people be free to edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Register an account. Really it's that easy. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That easy it may be, but your comment seems to go against the idea of Wikipedia. For does not forcing people to sign-in indicate the same old need a to keep control? And there was I thinking this was a "free encyclopedia, written collaboratively by the people who use it." (talk) 12:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Literally thousands of pages on this site are protected. Some are even off-limits for normal users like me to edit. So no, it doesn't "indicate" jack shit.
If you really want to edit, you can make an account. Otherwise, stop pissing and moaning about it on the talkpage. Nobody's impressed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Let’s just stop answering those complaining individuals in this section. Wikipedia has rules; those rules have been explained now in this section. We, Wikipedia, consider those rules reasonable and necessary. If people want to play our ‘game: Wikipedia’, they will have to accept those basic rules of that game. If they don’t like those rules: too bad, start your own game somewhere. Sorry. Goodbye. Discussion over. Corriebertus (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked at every turn. Beautifully synchronized - don't you agree?

People giving the game away? Questions starting to get a little close-to-home? Trouble-makers not willing to take no for an answer? Well simply "stop answering those complaining individuals" and hide behind the rules. Clearly, rules are rules, but they should not be used to prevent reasonable questioning. For such bans are odds with all you claim to stand for. Welcome to Wikipedia - the encyclopedia that anyone can edit?

Good morning, and in case I don't see ya, good afternoon, good evening, and good night! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Numbers of Iranians in Syria

It has already been mentioned in the article that: "On 17 June it was reported by a journalist for the Independent that Iran was sending 4,000 Revolutionary Guards to fight in Syria. Iranian officials denied that claim." However, this number has not been mentioned in the infobox under "Strength". Is the fact that Iranian officials have denied this a reason to leave it out? If nobody reacts on this in 3 days I will put the number of 4,000 next to the 150 already mentioned with the appropriate source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomvasseur (talkcontribs) 20:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

You may put it once you provide a source claiming that these soldiers arrived to Syria. Until then we may assume they are underway or even have never left Iran. --Emesik (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The Iranian government denying it does not illegitimate the number. If Nusra and ISIS denies things, do we remove them from the article? No. Sopher99 (talk) 12:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

SpidErxD removed the number of 4,000, because there was no source about whether or not they have already arrived. However, a Dutch journalist Roozbeh Kaboly has received a video showing Iranians working and fighting with Syrian soldiers. I know this video doesn't show 4,000 soldiers, but can it serve as an indication that they have been deployed. I will again wait 3 days before making the change if no good counter-argument (if nobody else has).
I would also like to ask SpidErxD to go into more discussion with regard to more substantive edits. I don't want to sound bossy, but looking at the view history of today you do tend to make chances very easily. E.g. his changing of the SILF flag (visible in the view history, but not on the articcle itself) from the NSC flag to the/an islamist flag for example does not, or insufficiently take into account, that other sources used on this page mention that the SILF seems to be against the "Caliphate" ideas of other islamist groups & in support of keeping a national Syrian state. This is not to say that, that change shouldn't have been made, but i think a discussion is first needed.--Tomvasseur (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the complete video posted without any subtitles
This is an al-Jazeera report about it from 9/09
Here is the first news item I saw it is worth watching, because of the subtitles of the original video
--Tomvasseur (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Videos on Youtube don't prove a thing. It was never confirmed these soldiers ever arrived, so it should not be included. FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Well as Sopher said the fact that Iranian or Syrian authorities haven't confirmed anything is not really a good reason. As shown above there have been reports from several news organisations concerning this material and the Independent ran a non-connected story about Iran commissioning 4,000 soldiers to go to Iran. Remember that military advisors generally do not engage in combat. I wont put the 15 minute YT video in, because of WP:PRIMARY, but the al-Jazeera, Independent, and (English subtitled) Nieuwsuur sources are acceptible going by WP:NEWSORG. I will be conservative and add that "possibly larger Iranian military presence". I will not put an exact number down, but given the source material a mentioning is warranted. --Tomvasseur (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The New Yorker btw also mentioned there being "thousands" of Quds in Syria (, but I don't know where they got that from and it's a very vague estimate so while they normally do good work I wont put this as a source.--Tomvasseur (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The sources which talk about the video in which we allegedly see Iranian advisors is not proof that there are more than the 150 confirmed advisors in the country. It only possibly confirms the already established presence of Iranians, not that there are more than 150. As for the source that talks about 4,000, that source says they were going to be sent but it does not say that their deployment has started or that any of them have already arrived to Syria. As for the thousands claim by the New talked about a period that was way before it was established only 150 were in the country (so that would make it out-of-date), not to mention at a time when the opposition was claiming there were thousands of Iranians (who themselves are unreliable in that regard). So, for now we without a doubt, based on the sources we have, can safely say there are Iranians in Syria, with a confirmed number of 150. Anything other than that would be speculation or original research. It's not a matter wether Iran or Syria deny it. It's a matter of what the reliable news sources can tell us. And for now, just the one source, has confirmed 150, no more. EkoGraf (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Calling those Iranians advisors is already a statement you can't make for certain. They don't have advisor, soldier, cook, comedian or what have you written on their forehead. However, we do see them engage in combat and military advisors do not engage in combat. That either means that the 150 Iranians of which we are certain that they are in Syria have gone past their initial function descripion, weren't advisors to begin with, or that there is another group of Iranians fighting in Syria. Whichever it is "advisor" has to be changed to something else. Moreover, how is the Independent not a reliable news source? It is not News of the World, it is a well established newspaper without a record of biased reporting. As you are doing the good thing by discussing this on the talk page I will not change it. --Tomvasseur (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm going add Iran too the section of "Syrian government affiliated parties" and refer to the main article "Iranian support for Syria in the Syrian civil war". I will probably do this in a few hours as I don't think it is very controversial. --Tomvasseur (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

End of alliance between islamist rebels and Syrian National Coalition

The islamist rebels in Syria have announced that they do not recognise the authority of the Syrian National Council and only fight for the objective of imposing Islamic law (Sharia) on the country, thus ending the alliance between the two groups. source:

This is not an "end" of an alliance - there was no alliance to begin with. Can you give us a source showing they ever recognized the SNC in the first place? Sopher99 (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm just saying that the two groups shouldn't be on the same side on the list of belligerents. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
They're not opposed to each other, they both want Assad out, so yes they should. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree, especially considering the SNC has virtually no control over the militancy in Syria and the Islamists are still paying lip service to Idris' command. I do, however, think it's appropriate to separate the "secular" groups that recognize the SNC from the Islamist groups with a horizontal divider. They're militarily on the same side, yes, but the political opposition is only aligned with certain factions. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Name one fighting group that is secular.just one. (talk) 16:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
There are some Palestinian groups fighting on the regime side that are quite secular. Can't say that for anything on the "rebel" side. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The PLFP-GC is only one group (not some), is a pathetic Assad regime stooge outfit, and has about 5 members. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Although this new alliance does not have a formal name yet, some of its members call it the "Islamic Alliance". It's probably premature now, but in the future it may be worth including this new alliance in the infobox.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

May be just a descriptive name. As this isn't WikiNews, we should give all this dust a moment to settle before making major changes. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Among the groups which denounced the SNC are also the Al-Tawhid Brigade, Liwa al-Islam and Suqour al-Sham Brigade which, according to Charles Lister from IHF's Jane, represented the main presence and force of the SNC on the field. What's left of the so called "moderate FSA" will probably be dealt with fairly quickly by the new alliance of the jihadists/fundamentalists/mujahideens/islamists/terrorists (or whatever they are called these days). Especially since FSA doesn't control much of the territory and their numbers are usually exaggerated. Ratipok (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I should point out that I've created Islamic Coalition (Syria). Podiaebba (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Before long, all of FSA will have been assimilated. But really, do we need articles for every minor group and arbitrary "coalition" in this war? FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Please don't

The Free Syrian Army is being wipped out of the map, if it even really existed. The national coalition backed by the western powers is completely powerless on the ground. It's clear that the hardline islamists fighters have completely taken over the rebellion.

What puzzle me the most is how western governements and western based supporter can still back a rebellion where the strongest forces are the Islamic state of Iraq, Al Nusra, Arhar al Sham, Liwa al Islam, Liwa al Taweed... This is a complete anti west force. --Super Loony Toon (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It will bite them in the ass eventually, but right now, they're just happy to weaken the "Shia Crescent" on behalf of the Gulf states and Israel. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I love how you people complain about America pursing humanitarian benefits over its interests, when during the Bush years you were complaining about America sacrificing humanitarian benefits for its interests. Sopher99 (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I love how you assume anyone buys claims of a supposedly "humanitarian" angle of an intervention. It's just a bad excuse. As Obama himself said, if it was about "humaitarianism", why not interfere in the Congo, where millions have been killed? No American interests. In Syria, there's at least the inherent pressure from the Gulf and Zionists. FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Meh. The Syrian conflict is, from a Western perspective, by any definition a cluster and the article should make that clear. In my opinion the infobox oversimplifies too much, the fighting really is sectarian at this point and cannot be accurately simplified to two "sides". VQuakr (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
"The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff does not believe the Syrian rebels would support US interests in case America helps them defeat Assad, according to General Martin Dempsey’s letter, obtained by AP." not much humanitarian calculation there so why would people buy that, that's true enough - but then neither is there evidence of interest to support the rebelsSayerslle (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Uh, remember Afghanistan in the 80s? American "intelligence" is no intelligence. Memory seems to fall short in these regions. The West has always preferred Islamists over secular Arabs, since the latter tend to be left-leaning and pro-Russian. Only exception I can think of is in Palestine, but that's mainly because the PLO has lost its teeth completely, but so has Hamas for that matter. You get paid better for attacking the Majoosis than the Jews, I guess. FunkMonk (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Re 'American "intelligence" is no intelligence'. Referencing the USSA position reveals it is Schizoid. The more its exposed the more Schizoid it is. In its wake is humanitarian disaster, Libya, Iraq. And now Syria. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I have a better question for this discussion - who cares if Syria becomes Islamist? Saudi Arabia and Iran are radical Islamist - I don't Russia or America complaining. 120,000 people are dead, 2 million people are refugees outside of Syria, 6 million are displaced inside of syria. GDP growth is -80% (-2% American GDP growth caused the "great recession") Islamism, whether shia or sunni, has never brought 1% of this in any country. And why so scared of islamists? You can just launch a military coup like in Egypt and pretty much get away with it. They won't even fight back.
Islamism is not going to bring a pro or anti americanism in Syria. Syria is and has always been a country a mixed opinion, and will remain that way. Only 54% of Russians - the so called grand enemies of the United states - hold a negative view of America, according to the voice of Russia. [8] If America's "biggest enemy" only holds a very slight majority of negativity towards America, what makes you think the Syrian people are going to be more aggressive or passive towards america? Some years 40% will hate America. Other years it will be 60%. But Syria will never be an anti-American or Pro-American country. Sopher99 (talk) 04:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Think, dude. Where do you think Saudi Arabia would be today without oil? It would be nothing, a bunch of eternally warring tribes. Same for Iran, though they arguably could had pulled it off without oil, they were always rather civilised. As for Egyptian Islamists not fighting back, that's simply because the Saudis and Americans support the military regime there and don't flood the Islamists with weapons, as in Syria and Libya. It isn't that they don't try, they just don't have the equipment, and sadly no western white-knights coming to their aid. These things are obvious, so spare us the lame rhetorical questions. As for an "anti-American country" or not, that doesn't matter, as long as there are groups within these countries that are willing and able to harm you, it doesn't matter how few they are. 17 Saudis were enough to kill 3000 American civilians, remember that? One Lebanese was enough to kill 300 American marines as well. As for who cares if Islamists get power? Obviously the American and European public does, that's why you can't have your cute little intervention in Syria. And then of course the way underestimated secular Arabs and minorities, who will fight to the last man against your Salafist pals, and that's all that matters. They won't go into exile or be willingly massacred just because Sopher and Obama tells them it would be more "humanitarian" of them to give up. FunkMonk (talk) 15:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The Egyptian militayr killed more unarmed civilian islamists in one week than islamist killed minorities in Egypt in the past 50 years. Weve seen what "secular" arabs do - Saddam killed 400,000 shias (of which only 10-20,000 were militants) and Gaddafi killed thousands of political prisoners. Gaddafi killed more of his own people than islamists have killed members of minorities in the whole of North Africa. I don't believe your claim that seculars and minorities are the victims. Why should 15 million people suffer just because 1 or 2 million people might become unsafe? Sopher99 (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
So again, why don't you guys flock to the Egypt talkpages and defend the poor Muslim Brotherhood as viciously as you defend Salafists here? I don't get it, you have even more of a moral obligation for that, since your government is actually arming the regime there. As for Ghadaffi and Saddam, you are seriously claiming they killed as many people in such a short time span as we are seeing now? Saddam killing political enemies over a span of 30 years isn't comparable to hundreds of random people getting blown to bits every single week. As for minorities, do you think they should take your word for it that nothing will happen to them? You don't think they'd rather look at precedents like Iraq and Libya and realise they'll get massacred either way? How stupid do you think they are? FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

War crimes section? (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

We used to have an elaborate human right violations section but it was cut for space by Future and the others.

Anyway here is your answer:

Sopher99 (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me: why are you two gentlemen talking in some secret language? Blade.o.t.S doesn't pose a question, Sopher doesn't give an answer. Just throwing an internet address in a discussion section doesn't count as asking, nor as answering - at least not for other readers except you two.
And about the HRW-report: it sounds terrible, and must ofcourse be mentioned either in our article Scw or in any of its subarticles. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes its notable enough Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Dividing line between sections 2.1 and 2.2

Our section 2, presenting ‘the course of events’ of what we first considered ‘protests’, later on considered (protests and) ‘uprising’, and again later on considered ((protests and) uprising and) ‘civil war’, has since very early times been split up in (chronological?) subsections. The dividing lines between those subsections have many times been altered. This to some extend is acceptable, and sometimes even inevitable or necessary. The proceeding of time may give cause to unite two sections of older date, or to change our opinion about a logical place for a dividing line between subsections.

For several weeks before 21Aug2013 subsect 2.2 was called: ‘Civil uprising (March-Aug 2011)’ and 2.3 called ‘Armed insurgency (June-Oct 2011)’. 21Aug2013,17:05, Greyshark09 changed that in: §2.2 Mrch-Aug; §2.3 Sept-Oct2011. However, he did not give any reason for that in an edit summary.

24Aug2013,19:56 FutureTrillionaire (FT) changed this further into: 2.2 Mrch-July; 2.3 July-Oct2011. He also did not give much of an explanation, only: “correcting dates”.

If we assume section 2 to be divided in chronological periods (what anyway would seem desirable and practical to me), we might assume that FT on 24Aug2013 placed that subsection-dividing line somewhere in July2011. Further considering that sect 2.3 that day starts with info about 29July2011 we could assume that FT implied to let §2.2 end before 29Jul (28Jul?) and 2.3 begin between 2 and 29Jul, most likely 29Jul2011. (This assumption is almost perfectly corroborated by sub-article ‘Civil uprising phase of the Syrian civil war’ which today says: ’15 March – 29 July 2011’: ‘28 July’ would seem best to me.)

Going from those assumptions, I considered the edit 12Oct14:05 FT incorrect: info about 4June2011 would belong in §2.1(Mrch-Jul2011) and not in §2.2(Jul-Oct2011). (Former section-numbers 2.2 and 2.3 had in the mean time been lowered to 2.1 and 2.2.) So I repaired that on 12Oct14:43. This led FT, 12Oct23:29, to once again putting that info about 4June2011 in sect §2.2(Jul-Oct2011) and at the same time altering the ‘date ranges’ of sections 2.1 and 2.2 into: March-June and June-Oct2011. This looks like a violation of the ‘1 revert per 24 hours’-rule, although FT does not exactly give a revert, he combines his ‘revert’ with his extra altering of those date ranges. His explanation in edit summary is strange, quizzical to me: “this [4June’11] was an important event”. Did anyone ever contend it was not important? Do we not note many many many important things, or only important things, in article Scw, and in its subarticles? Can an event in section 2.1 not be ‘important’? Will all ‘important events’ in sect 2.1 now be transferred to 2.2, and consequently the date ranges of sections 2.1 and 2.2 be changed every time to match with that transfer? I mean, dear FT: what is going on? What is your point, what is your problem? What is your real reason for that edit 12Oct23:29? Ofcourse I disadvise that 12Oct23:29 altering of date ranges, because nothing is wrong with a dividing line at 28/29July2011, or at any other date in Jul2011, as far as I know. An event in June2011 being ‘important’ does not sound to me as a logical reason to change date ranges, because §2.1 is allowed to contain ‘important’ events too, I believe. As I said already 12Oct14:43: that info about 4June2011 Jisr is splendidly presented in: ‘Civil uprising phase of the Syrian civil war’. If desired, one can always alter the summary of it in article Scw section 2.1.

I also ask now from our other colleagues: where exactly (on the date exactly!) do we wish and decide the dividing line to be between sections 2.1 and 2.2? Corriebertus (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

In the fall of 2011, there were both peaceful protests and armed reblleion. It's not like everything before the formation of the FSA was peaceful protests and everything after contained no protests. There is no solid dividing line between the 2 phases.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Syrian civil war infobox

How can we reach 'Syrian civil war infobox' (the big box on top of the article), in case we would like to correct or update some info in that box? --Corriebertus (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Syrian civil war infobox DylanLacey (talk) 05:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:47, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


How come the words "civil" and "war" are not capitalized? B-Machine (talk) 21:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone contested it being capitalized last December, here. The most recent mention in the archived discussion is here. VQuakr (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Campaign pages

Hi! I started the page Rif Dimashq Governorate campaign and I thin wee need such pages on other parts of Syria (Aleppo, Daraa, Idlib, Der ez Zor!) Could someone help me with expanding the new one and starting others? Thanks--Reader1987 (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The true number of FSA soldiers

This article says there are reports that after the multiple recent desertions, the FSA comprises just 3000-5000 fighters. Should this be put into the infobox instead of the current months-old estimates? Esn (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

On the one hand Haaretz does count as a reliable source in this case as they would have more reason to exagerrate the number of FSA troops than underestimate. On the other hand this would mean that, in the best case, there has been a drop of 90% in the manpower of the FSA and in the worst case it would be 96,25. That is a very big claim to make. Especially considering that it is unclear what reports are referred to and considering that Haaretz says that the reliability of them is difficult to assess. Now that later point can be overseen as almost all estimates on troop levels are uncertain at best, but I think it is best to wait 2-3 weeks to see if similar, or contrary, reports pop up. --Tomvasseur (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Updated total death graph

I have made an update for the total death graph. (Section 11.1 Impace/Deaths) Can somebody with editing rights please add this? GraysonWiki (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for updating it. Esn (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The update is totally wrong. The death toll reached 100,000 in June and 120,000 in September. Sopher99 (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Terrorist al-Golani killed

Should this be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Section 2 (Events): five chronology-problems

Section 2 of article Syrian civil war (Scw), presenting the course of events, or timeline, of these protests-and-uprising-and-civil_war, is in general organized chronologically, I believe. If anyone disapproves of it being or becoming chronologically structured, please let him say so, and say also how he prefers to organize that section. Five problems with respect to that chronology have arisen, of which nrs 1, 2 and 5 have not yet been resolved (and nrs 3 and 4 contain warnings).

  1. After the ‘timeline’ (as we called it between 22Feb2011 and 28Jul2012) in section2 had on 30Dec2011 been split up in chronological subsections “for readability”, the first breaking of its chronological order occurred on 10July2012. Fanzine999 added information about 10Jul’12 in section 2.5(Ceasefire attempt) although the following subsection already presented info on “end of May2012”. This antichronological overlap between the (present) sections 2.4(Ceasefire) and 2.5(Fighting) has remained ever since, and gotten worse: today sect 2.4 even overlaps with sect 2.6(Battles). I consider it preferable that events like Houla massacre (25May2012), tensions Syria-Turkey (June), rebel victories (1-10July), statements of Kofi Annan (10July), statements of International Red Cross (mid July), use of warplanes (August), withdrawing of UN mission (19Aug) appear chronologically in section2 so that the reader can draw his own conclusions, rather than unchronologically spread over three overlapping subsections, as is now the case, thus thrusting ideas and interpretations of Wiki-editors upon the readers. Therefore, I suggest to merge or reorganize sections 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 so that all combat-events and political or other statements that we apparently consider relevant for section2 will appear in correct chron. order in section2.
  2. The second breach in the chronology came about by FutureTrillionaire (FT) on 28July2012,00:04. He inserted the thematical subsections: ‘Domestic response’ and ‘International reaction’ halfway into section2, both overlapping in date ranges with preceding and following subsections. ‘Internat.reaction’ was soon again put apart outside section2; ‘Domestic response’ however lingered, and eventually resulted in unchronological elements in today’s subarticle Civil uprising phase of the Syrian civil war. I therefore propose to remove sections: ‘Censorship’ and ‘Propaganda’ (which both reach beyond the date range of that subarticle) from that subarticle to a new section in main article: ‘Scw#Censorship and propaganda’.
  3. A third breaking of chronology again came from FT on 15July2013,13:27, when he introduced two chronologically overlapping subsections in section2: ‘Civil uprising March-August2011’ and ‘Armed insurgency June-October2011’. That edit fundamentally disturbed the (chrono)logic of this Wikipedia article. Perhaps he was frustrated over a disagreement with a colleague (14Jul) but that should never lead to distorting the chronological principle of section2, I believe. Subsections in sect2 should fall in behind each other, not overlap. No sooner than 37 days later Greyshark09 repaired the chronology, which means that for 37 days we have been confusing our readers with an illogical section2. I entreat on FT, not to disturb the chronology of section2.
  4. The fourth breaking of chronology came from FT again, on 12Oct2013,14:05, when he double-placed information about Jisr 4June2011, already presented in Civil uprising phase of the Syrian civil war, incorrectly in subsection Scw#Armed insurgency Jul-Oct2011. His edit summary: “not sure why this was removed” seems nonsense, it wasn’t removed, he just wasn’t looking for it at the logical place. One can always disagree about the most appropriate subdivision of section 2, or about titling those subsections, but one should not muddle (mess up) the whole section like this. Ofcourse I corrected that mistake, 12Oct,14:43.
  5. Fifth chronology problem: on 14Oct2013,16:51+16:52, FutureTrillionaire reorganized section 2 so that §2.1 now runs: ‘March-June2011,Civil uprising’ and §2.2 now runs: ‘June-Oct2011,Protests and armed insurgency’. His edit summary said: the info on Jisr 4June2011 “belongs in the insurgency section”. That reason is not right: our subsections in sect2 are principally time intervals, not ‘thematical sections’ as FT seems to presume. His edit was right though, but the correct reason should be: Jisr4June2011 was armed insurgency, so apparently armed insurgency already started 4Jun2011. But the chronology-problem FT caused with the edit, is that he didn’t adjust date ranges (and content) of subarticle Civil uprising phase of the Syrian civil war to the new subdivision in main article Scw. If he finds it necessary to change date ranges in main article, I consider it FT’s responsibility to also adjust Civil uprising phase of the Syrian civil war correspondingly, to maintain the coherence between main article and subarticle. Corriebertus (talk) 14:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
If you want move sentences around so that the events are better presented in chronological order, that's fine. I don't oppose that. What I did oppose was your removal of important material, such as the armed clashes in Idlib of June 2011. Discussion on changing material in the other article goes into the other article's talk page.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - i would advocate that civil uprising in Syria was lasting until late August/early September, while clear-cut insurgency began in September/October 2011 (CNN say October [9]). Though less preferable, I would not resist to make 29 July, the founding of FSA, the threshold between "uprising" and "insurgency" (according to BBC it was late July [10]). I do stand against the idea to put the June 2011 events in "insurgency" section - the single isolated incident on June 4th isn't a reason to make so.GreyShark (dibra) 17:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Can we just accept that there were both peaceful protests and insurgency throughout 2011? Dividing the conflict into these two phases oversimplify things. I believe the events in the article should be organized chronologically and not by the nature of the conflict. As long as that's good and the section titles reflect the section's content, this shouldn't be an issue.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Future, actually we are always simplify things. But that is the way history is described. We should however to be careful not to oversimplify; in this case however i think it will not be a problem.GreyShark (dibra) 15:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
FT has been doing a lot of chronological adjusting if Corriebertus is correct. Im not sure how bad that has been yet, but it has the potential to be confusing. I like a chronology as long as its aware of convergent interests, thematic classes and divergent agendas. In short it has depth and breadth. Blade-of-the-South talk 03:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we stop the charade with regards to opposition force numbers?

What exactly is the point of inflating opposition numbers? Most of the information regarding strength contradicts the numbers on the Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I suspect its about POV spin to make them look legit. Blade-of-the-South talk 03:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, with all due respect, this page is not supposed to make either the rebels or the government look legit, it is supposed to present the facts. What I see on this page is that the Free Syrian Army supposedly has between 50,000 and 80,000 fighters, but when I click on the link all I see is Salim Idriss making that claim. Not very neutral. Hitler lied about his forces when they crossed into France, Castro lied about his strengths in the Sierra Maestra. Leaders lie, and this source we have for FSA numbers up there currently is not reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

So who put it in? Blade-of-the-South talk 23:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone who has a dog in this fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

As of now I don't have enough time to look into all the sources of this article, but why use this one instead of assessing the articles it cites on a case by case basis? --Tomvasseur (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Why hasn't that been done to the article that supposedly provides reliable information on the FSA strength box? 50-80 thousand is a number claimed by Salim Idriss. That is not reliable. Is it because you want to give off the notion that the FSA are bigger than they are? Do you want to give them unearned legitimacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

First, that is not an answer to the question posed. Second, an ad hominem is not an argument. Third, I haven't edited those numbers of the FSA, because I have concerned myself mainly with the number of Iranians in Syria and the number of 10,000 Mujahideen (which, I have noticed has been placed back in, and I will deal with that) and not with the other numbers. Fourth, while I was aware of the number of 80,0000 being a biased claim it is simply what we have to deal with. The FSA numbers are biased, the SILF numbers are biased and the SA numbers are biased. Wikipedia isn't omniscient and faultless. It is made by humans in the real world and as such has to deal with the fact that information may be scarce, biased, and that it takes time to reach people on Wikipedia.
For example, the article you posted is from last september just as the FP article that it has, among others, referred to and I haven't been aware of any non-incestuous claims concerning the number of FSA soldiers between last june - when the claim of 80,000 was made - until today.
I strongly suggest that you stop writing as if you feel attacked and be constructive(and that isn't a suggestion on my part that you do or don't feel like that or that you are of aren't attacked, just that you write as if you feel attacked). I do not denounce your source, but why not use the sources it cites, for example the (btw very good) FP article which it seems to base itself on for the larger part. --Tomvasseur (talk) 17:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

First, the evidence of bias in favour of the opposition in your post has led me to discredit your suggestions. Second, I have provided a constructive source. The Business Insider is reliable as it provides a comprehensive (and much more reliable source than Salim Idriss) account of the size of the rebel insurgents. If you choose the Salim Idriss listing over the Business Insider article, that highlights your bias. I don't know how hard it is to change the source from the one we have now to the Business Insider source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If you would like to re-evaluate the Syrian Arab Army's numbers by doing research while I can do the research on the oppositions numbers and present my facts, that would be great. That way we can end the bias on this page once and for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

By now I have had more time to look into the various articles to which the BI article links & I will use the articles on which the BI article is based as sources for various groups in the template, because they are more extensive on numbers and because I personally find that incestuous sources do not contribute to the quality of an article.
I also suggest that if you want to avoid that in the future people with less patience than me will tell you to go figure it out yourself you'd better not willy nilly accuse them of bias when your requests aren't followed upon. I simply asked a question with as goal improving the quality of the article out of convenience because I didn't have time at that moment. At no point was it the case that I argued against the updating of the infobox (I don't know where you get that from, let me again be clear that when I was writing about the BI article 16:03, 6 November 2013 and not the Wiki article); merely why it was better to update it citing BI instead of the articles the BI article links to. And to your 16:08, 7 November 2013 proposition: thank you, but no thanks. --Tomvasseur (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)--

Don't you patronize me. If you don't have the time then stay out of making this article better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Repairing references to main articles

  • Section 2 (timeline of events) had on 19 April 2011 grown very long, and was split off into: {main article: Timeline of the 2011 Syrian protests}, leaving behind a summary in Syrian civil war#section2. This is correct, and standard Wiki-procedure.
  • 19 August 2011, that main article ‘Timeline…’ had also gotten too long, and half of it was split into a subarticle Timeline Jan-Apr2011. From that moment, Scw#section2 did not have merely one, but two main articles, and it would have been correct, and corresponding with Wiki-principles, and simply taking our own Wikipedia serious, to indicate both those main articles in the heading of Scw#section2. After all: we’re talking about ‘main articles’, which means: more important than the summary of them that we left behind in Scw, and therefore deserving a referring line of approximately 21 words in the heading of that summary, directly referring to both main articles.
  • On 30-31 December 2011, the summary in Scw#section2 had also grown rather long, and was also split into (three) subsections. The division lines between them were chosen differently than those between the already existing subarticles of Timeline.... That is perhaps understandable and defendable, but can never alter the basic fact that for all those created subsections, the main article(s) still is or are one or two of those existing Timeline...-articles. Therefore, in the heading of each of those subsections we should have mentioned, and still today should mention, those appropriate one or two main articles. Once again: this is simply a matter of taking your own encyclopedia serious, and simply letting each reader clearly know that the section he is about to read is only a summary of a larger, more important, more precise, ‘main article’.
  • On 12 December 2012, editor Mor2 changed the indication: {Main article: Timeline…} in the heading of section2 into: {See also: Timeline…}, and that was incorrect. ‘{Main article:…}’ refers to the fact that one article-section is only a summary of another ‘main article’ in Wikipedia, it indicates a hierarchical relation between them. Corriebertus (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Total strength of all sides

Pro- Government forces: 302,150 Syrian Rebels: 118,000 Kurds: 45,000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by SourCreamShoe (talkcontribs) 05:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:OR--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Supported by

Soviet Union,China is added as supported by in VietNam War although 16 Soviet Military advisers and 1446 Chinese Military advisers died in vietnam war. But in Syrian Civil War, Iran is added as a Belligerent not Supporter. why?? I think we should add Iran,Russia as a supported of Syrian Govt. in Syrian Civil War article. (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC) Russia should definitely be added to a 'supported by' section under the 'Syrian Government Belligerents'. Possibly even Britain and France should be added to the 'supported by' sections.

Inaccurate Number of Syrian Government Troops

The cited article for the Syrian Armed Forces part of the Syrian civil war claims that the Syrian Armed Forces has 178,000 troops available as of August 2013. The infobox portion of the article does not include the 36,000 personnel of the Syrian Air Defense Force nor the 5,000 of the Syrian Navy. This is inaccurate as both have engaged the Syrian opposition on the side of the Syrian government and should be included in the total number of troops. The Syrian Armed Forces portion of the infobox should reflect the cited article's number of 178,000. Imgi12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

What does it matter? This article has exchanged academic integrity for propaganda. Any opportunity to inflate opposition numbers and shrink government numbers is pursued by a select few here.

Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:4647:AC04:0:558B:6EC0:FC69:5B2F (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

LIKE(Lihaas (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)).

2 Fronts

Please dont refer to Al Nusra merely as "the Front", we now also have teh "Islamic ront" of which Nusra are NOT a part.(Lihaas (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)).

I'm a little confused. Does the Islamic coalition (Syria) still exist? Is this new Islamic Front a replacement.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The Islamic Coalition consisted of nothing more than a single press release criticising the SNC. I suppose that the Islamic Front could be seen as a culmination of a process that started with the coalition's statement, given the overlap of membership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The Islamic Front was reported to have existed its probably different. Or as the IP said.(Lihaas (talk) 01:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)).

The internet in Syria

What is the condition of the internet in Syria? To my knowledge there is significant unfair competition in the United states. Is there anyone who knows how electronic trade has impacted inequality and thereby scarcity in Syria. (presumably scarcity is the root cause of the conflict since people with lots of wealth tend to go boating or back yard parties)

(talk) 22:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

You may have more luck finding an answer at Wikipedia's reference desk; article talk pages are for discussing the articles themselves, not their general subject. You may also want to review our Telecommunications in Syria article, which has a section on internet in Syria. --BDD (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Foreign involvement

The map on the section "Foreign involvement" is repeating the same thing twice, using two colors for the same statement. -- (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move (again)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. -- tariqabjotu 05:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Syrian civil warSyrian Civil War – I know, this has been discussed several times and this might not change anything, but for Christ's sake, every "Civil War" article is capitalized, that's what you do with historical events, it's not like you ever see World War II spelled "World war ii"! I know, all past arguements repeatedly stated that all sources have not capitalized, but that's only because it's recent history, in time, all "Civil Wars" are capitalized, that's always how it happens, and it would make for good consistency with other "Civil War" articles (American Civil War, Algerian Civil War, Angolan Civil War, Austrian Civil War, Brunei Civil War, Burundian Civil War, Cambodian Civil War, Chinese Civil War, Republic of the Congo Civil War, Costa Rican Civil War, English Civil War, Ethiopian Civil War, Finnish Civil War, Georgian Civil War, Greek Civil War, Guatemalan Civil War, Irish Civil War, Laotian Civil War, Lebanese Civil War, Mozambican Civil War, Nepalese Civil War, Nigerian Civil War, Paraguayan Civil War, Russian Civil War, Rwandan Civil War, Salvadoran Civil War, Sierra Leone Civil War, Somali Civil War, Sri Lankan Civil War, Uruguayan Civil War). Charles Essie (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. The title is the (proper) name of a particular war, not a description of a general phenomenon. —  AjaxSmack  02:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Ajax: not generic civil war. — kwami (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We go by what sources say. Sources do capitalize the names of the other conflicts you listed, so that's why we capitalize them. However, sources don't use "Syrian Civil War", so we don't capitalize either.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Comment: The MOS overrides sourcing (COMMONNAME does not apply) in matters of punctuation, capitalization, and formatting. Otherwise our article names would be complete chaos. L.c. is appropriate when speaking generically (Syria's civil war, the ongoing Syrian civil war), and that's how many of our sources are phrasing it, but AFAICT that's not the approach of this article. — kwami (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Well said, kwami. See also WP:SSF. --BDD (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Why are we discussing this again, what has changed? - This was already dicsussed at length before, and the consensus was to not capitalize "civil war".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
    • All previous arguements were about COMMONNAME and proper nouns, per kwami: COMMONNAME does apply in matters of punctuation, capitalization, and formatting, plus "Syrian Civil War" is proper noun, for some reason this was never acknowledegd like it should have been, that's why I'm bringing it up again, beacuse we kept getting it wrong. Charles Essie (talk) 03:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
See also WP:CCC. --BDD (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Russia–Georgia war can also be considered a sporadic conflict since it only lasted a week. And let me add a few more examples to your list: Spanish Civil War, Greek Civil War, Russian Civil War, American Civil War, Chinese Civil War. --Երևանցի talk 02:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
You are missing the point. First of all, a lot of the conflicts I listed are indeed "full blown" wars, resulting in thousands of deaths. Secondly, whether or not they are "sporadic" conflicts is not important when deciding whether or not the title should be capitalized. Since sources do capitalize "Spanish Civil War", so do we. Since sources don't capitalize "M23 rebellion", we don't as well. Also, a counter example to your point is the Whiskey Rebellion, which although is a "sporadic" conflict, is capitalized because sources capitalize it. We deciding which conflict to capitalize and which not to solely based on the nature of the conflict is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and unacceptable.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.