Talk:Syrian Civil War/Archive 33

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 40


Why are Wikipedia -or Wikipedians- still insisting to call this bunch of foreign long-bearded Islamist terrorists as rebels? Any rational explanation?--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be following what the preponderance of mainstream sources use. My survey of the sources does not show "foreign long-bearded Islamist terrorist" as a common term for the opposition. VQuakr (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Please try to build up a rational discussion without kidding. I did not mean to put the phrase "foreign long-bearded Islamist terrorist" in the articles. There are more accurate terms to be used rather than rebels (like militants, armed opposition or even terrorist groups). Stop making fun of others.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 04:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Please try to build up an impartial and substantiated argument without soapboxing. If there are "more accurate" labels to be used, then show us that they are the most common term in reliable sources. Stop getting irrationally hostile towards others. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:11, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Pro-opposition sources (US, Wetsren, Islamist sources), definitely use the term rebels, because those Islamists have become freedom fighters in their perspective, while pro-government sources (or pro-Syrian regime sources as you might like to call them) are labeling them as terrorsits or mercenaries. As you said "try to build up an impartial and substantiated argument without soapboxing", why should Wikipedia use the pro-opposition term and not the neutral terms? Why don't Wikipedians become balancecd and neutral by using a term that would be acceptable for both sides? Isn't it better to label them as "armed opposition" or "armed militants", as they are far away from being rebels, especially the foreigners?--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I mean, there are a few terms that we've used on Wikipedia. Rebels, opposition fighters, anti-government militants, Islamist fighters (when appropriate), regime defectors (again, when appropriate), etc. I'm not sure what your point is? "Rebels" is short, to the point, commonly used, and accurate. And in future, when you're trying to advance an argument, maybe don't open with a pejorative characterization of the entire opposition movement in Syria and what looks suspiciously close to an accusation that all of your fellow editors here are willfully trying to distort the truth? -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • the term opposition - all, terrorists, insurgents, and others. the rebels .... may be in any concrete case it was the rebels. as there is no official source: correct to say so. as it is called in the article. I think that you're (Zyzzzzzy) wrong. today. Wiki not become says that the opposition = rebels Rqasd (talk) 13:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
This can’t be considered a constructive discussion. Who are ‘a bunch of (bearded) terrorists’ according to Zyzzy? Where does Wikipedia call those terrorists rebels? Why can’t a terrorist be a rebel? Nonsense discussions on this page should be ignored and aborted, I think. (And Rqasd writes incomprehensible code here: please try to write English language.) Corriebertus (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

All this seemingly endless talk(ing-shop) might soon be pointless. As this war drags on, and the FSA continues to get wiped out, it might no longer matter what anyone calls the ('good') rebels. For what remains is likely to be foreign Terror Gangs - the very criminals the 'War on Terror' set out to defeat. (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

New section for Belligerents needed

[ Concerning section 5 : Opposition parties : ] It's obvious ISIL and FSA are at opposite ends. ISIL and supporters should be a separate section Armynut15 (talk) 09:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It's obvious that editors should read past discussions before starting new ones: FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
classy...Armynut15 (talk) 05:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

We'll simply revive the discussion. 1500 fighters have died between the two groups, a greater recorded death toll than the battle between ISIS and kurdish factions. Both ISIL and FSA leaders as well have been killed between the two.

The conflict is much more widespread between the rebels and ISIL. All these reasons are good for altering the infobox. But don't take my word for it, lets gather the sources. Sopher99 (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

source gathering , [1], and a skeptical take [2]Sayerslle (talk) 15:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Yet again, this needs a couple of months before we can do anything drastic. They still claim to be allies. Unlike the Kurds and any other faction. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
-- this is just source gathering [3]Sayerslle (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The whole conspiracy theory thing has nothing to do with the columns, so please spare us. Though it is ironic that Americans would point to Syria letting Salafists into Iraq in the past as evidence for a current alliance. Seems like they forgot how they helped the Jihadis in Afghanistan against the Soviets. Does that mean they were allis during 9/11? Ridiculous. FunkMonk (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
is this relevant? 'ISIS has taken a clear & definitively anti-SMC (& SNC) stance in its reaction to Sheikh Moheisini's "Umma Initiative” [4] ' from Charles Listers twitterSayerslle (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Even FSA is "anti SNC", so no.06:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
and anti-SMC? Sayerslle (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

ISIL is waging a full scale war. The 'alliance' can be considered over.Armynut15 (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

We dont need to wait months. ISIL is certainly opposed to the FSA [5]...and now even al qaeda have disowned them.[6]Lihaas (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
We still don't know what it means in the long run, so yes, we'll have to wait. Hezbollah and Amal, both Shia groups, fiercely fought each other for some time in the 80s in Lebanon, yet no one would put them in different rows in the Leb civil war infobox, because they were mainly aligned. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
[7] - the point is to try and represent the reality[8] as reflected in RS - anyhow the Lebanese civil war infobox may have been written up by pro-Hezbollah or hafez assad lovers and be quite misleading for all we know Sayerslle (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Lol. Why not by pro-Lebanese Forces and Menachem Begin lovers? Reality is still that theopposition groups claim they are allies. Until they don't, that's what matters. FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with FunkMonk. ISIS is still at war with the Syrian government. Just in the last few days they have been fighting around Safira. All the sources you put forward of possible Assad-ISIS connections are just speculations, a definite connection has not been proven. The current double line separating the ISIS from the rest of the rebellion is enough. EkoGraf (talk) 02:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Lol, Akhbar is sectarian? It is left wing, with secular writers from all sects, Sunni, Shia, Christian, from all over the Arab world, including states where basically everyone is Sunni. But of course, I shouldn't expect an average American would know anything about Middle Eastern news sources. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
what does Akhbar say about Yarmouk? (i'm not an American -i'm british)- its like in the camp wars - assad /Syria/ (Iran) murders Palestinians and has diabolical ludicrous 'left wing' fanboys Sayerslle (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Unlike your favourite Gulf owned media, it actually shows several different opinions, and writers are allowed to disagree with and criticise each other.[12][13][14] FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Commentary on Joshua Landis' blog, which is pretty firmly in the opposition camp by now: FunkMonk (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose a new column since both the opposition and ISIS have Assad as a mutual enemy and comparing the intensity of the clashes between them and between the rebels and the Kurds is irrelevant in my opinion because they are both somehow similar ideology-wise and the Kurds are generally in a defensive mode unlike the rebels and ISIS. That's in addition to the numerous truce agreements between them which somehow hints the conflict between them could end soon, contrary to the conflict both have with the government. The Lebanese Civil War had almost all factions fighting each other (Maronite vs Maronite, Maronite vs Sunni, Maronite vs Shiite, Sunni vs Sunni, Sunni vs Shiite, Israel vs Sunni, Israel vs Shiite..etc) but we still don't see a 4th column there. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
fsa-isil clash Sayerslle (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Impact - Child Soldiers

Why have we not addressed child soldiers at all in this article? I believe in would be a good idea to put it under the impact section. The rebels routinely enlist child soldiers on the front lines to fight the government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:4647:AC04:0:21E:C2FF:FEAC:F52F (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Be WP:BOLD.Lihaas (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Because it puts the opposition in a bad light. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Why should we not list every method being employed by the opposition? Aren't we listing every known method used by the government?--Metalhead94 T C 18:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
UN on abuse of children - [15] - 'Children in Syria have been tortured, maimed and sexually abused by Bashar al-Assad's forces' - [16] Sayerslle (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
FSA leaders abuse their own grandchildren.[17] FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
And oh: FunkMonk (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

4th side on the infobox

I think that enough time and evidence has passed to make the info box 4-sided making the Islamic state in Iraq and sham the fourth side.Alhanuty (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

  • We have two sections about this already. Keep the discussion there. Constantly creating new sections doesn't change what has already been said. FunkMonk (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I am just proposing,it and fine I will.Alhanuty (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Read the threads upstairs Alhanuty, it has already been discussed. Sidenote, yesterday's ceasefire treaty between the IF brigade and ISIS once again casts doubt on the need for a fourth column. EkoGraf (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Al nusra is at war with ISIS. Time for a change in the infobox.

Their has already been greater casualties and more widespread fighting between ISIS and rebels than between rebels and Kurdish factions Sopher99 (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Should we soon move the regime and the FSA into the same column? FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
no - [18] Sayerslle (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, those desperate rumours explain why the FSA are making truces/surrendering in droves to the Syrian army. Great observation, Sayer. And great Saudi-sponsored source, too. But back to reality: "According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, rebels and regime loyalists have even set up joint checkpoints in some areas such as Qudsaya."[19] Checkpoints against who? FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Infobox commanders section

I propose this for the "Generals and leaders" section in the infobox because it is more informative that way and is necessary for readers to understand who the belligerents are. Not all commanders have pages linked to their names so i believe this would be suitable in this case.
I also suggest we remove Adnan Bakkour from the rebels' list because there is no need to add two former commanders of Liwa al-Tawhid. Just one would do and Abdul Qader Saleh appears to be more notable. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Financial cost of the war

New section needed for the cost of the war itself, not just the effect on the economy. Here's a usable article [(1) ] nov 6th 2013, bit old. regardsLugnuthemvar (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

East European Mercenaries used by Assad gov. (talk) 23:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Too few and insignificant to warrant a mention. 23 fighters, are you kidding? FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Could breifly mention in the sub pages. As for this, it needs trimming big-time. Although a better source is needed. Th is is [arguably] biased, and its report merely cites speculation: "March 14 officials received security information ", "According to the one Eastern European country’s intelligence unit," "According to well-informed sources"(Lihaas (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)).
  • "March 14 officials received security information" That alone makes the story suspicious. FunkMonk (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

A late 2012 UN report described the conflict as "overtly sectarian in nature"[90] between Alawite shabiha militias

What a garbage post. Does anybody not realize that the SAA is the main fighting force and not shabiha. Change it you partisan thugs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This is actually some BS. Can we just call it "mostly between Shia and Sunni" without going deeper into the details in the lede? --Emesik (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that you offer any WP:RS before you challenge a UN report. I recall many source the charactrized the conflict as such, moreover it is reflected not only in the lead but in the article itself --PLNR (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not challenging the UN report, just the claim that the conflict is between Shabiha and Sunni groups. It should be mentioned it is mostly Shi'a-Sunni, nothing more. --Emesik (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The report is outdated in any case, the so called "Shabiha" groups have been merged into the NDF. And the main fighter is the Syrian Army. Neither are sectarian, and have many Sunnis, Druze and Christians. Most Syrian soldiers are in fact Sunnis, like most of the government. FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Rebels vs. ISIL map

isn't it about time that stupid map showing ISIL in control of more than half the rebel areas got replaced with something more recent? using this old map which reflects the situation only two weeks into the conflict between ISIL and the rebels gives the wrong impression to the uninformed, who will think the front lines are still structured this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Please be more precise in your complaint. We don't have the time to research ourselves what exactly you might be talking about. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:43, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The map in the article is based off of this which is continuously updated when territory is taken by one group or another. As you can see the ISIL dominion over that large chunk of land from Deir Ezzor all the way into Aleppo and Idlib no longer exists, continuing to use this map gives the impression that the ISIL dominates the rebel held territories when this is far from the truth.

Much like the map here there seems to be a deliberate intention of overestimating ISIL territory which is highly suspicious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Quit mucking around

We need a 4th section in the infobox. Unless everyone want's to pretend we're all living under a rock, it's a 4 way civil war now. Lugnuthemvar (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Nusra just gave ISIL an ultimatum of a few days. Let's see what happens with that before we do anything. There's still a lot of will to continue their former alliance, so I doubt a fourth column will reflect the reality on the ground in a meaningful way. FunkMonk (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
No we don't because:
  1. They still have common goals different than those of Assad and the Kurds.
  2. There's still a potential (no matter how slight) of easing tensions between them, regardless of the number of casualties in their conflict.
  3. The infobox makes it clear now that there is a war between them.
  4. 4th columns don't show up.
Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Israel in infobox

Here and here. (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

See here: And your first link is unreliable. FunkMonk (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Here again (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
This claims that Israel has spies in Syria (well duh!), not that it is involved in the conflict. Mezigue (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


Under one of the map pictures, it says: "Controlled by ISIL" referring to the gray area on the map.

I think the accepted abbreviation is ISIS not ISIL. No? (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)C

  • The last letter stands for "al Sham", which is pretty much "Geater Syria", but some translate it as Levant instead, therefore the discrepancy. FunkMonk (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess it's a bit confusing when you have two different acronym for the same name. (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)C

North Korea and Iran (twice) in the infobox

Iran is already mentioned prominently in the regime's section, so why mention it a second time under "Armament support"?
North Korea's role consists mostly of military advising which is not as notable as Tehrik-i-Taliban for example, who established their own training camps with hundreds of fighters on ground. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol, North Korea is in, but Israel isn't? Slightly ridiculous. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Like PLNR said, Israel is targeting Hezbollah in particular. And this is mainly part of the wider Iran-Israel proxy conflict, not this one. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Assad support

>> Most Syrians back President Assad, but you'd never know from western media(Lihaas (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)).

Likely correct (at least in the sense that most Syrians prefer the regime over the "opposition"), but probably can't be used here, since it is only an opinion piece. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Worth noting this poll is 2 years old. If someone wants to report it, the BBC version[20] whould be WP:RS. The BBC digged into the survey, and discovered there were only 98 respondents from Syria (all online, so atypical), a very low sample size for the "55% of Syrians think that Assad should stay" conclusion. The 1000 respondants were Middle East wide. Rwendland (talk) 17:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
should have democratic elections then shuoldnt he? lihaas, assad can't lose - jonathan steele is like Robert fisk , apologist for regime - assad clan been ruling the country for several decades hasn't it? -look at hafez in 1991 - 'control of the electoral system

about 1991, he had just been re-elected for another 6 year term - an incredible election victory - 99.66% of the vote " -if hes so popular why doesn't he allow free media etc- why so determined to control everything, lihaas? - Gilbert Achcar - "a background of huge social inequality, a very corrupt regime – where Bashar Assad’s cousin became the richest man in the country, controlling – it is widely believed – over half of the economy. And that’s only one member of the ruling clan – all members of which were gaining huge material benefits. The clan functions as a real mafia, and has been ruling the country for several decades. "-every time funkmoti, lihaas, punxkid, tourbillon, etc etc add any edit its always love for regime - if admins never warn these editors that there is a need for an attempt at least at neutral editing articles will get made progressively worthless over time - admins, please , step in sometimes over pov issues , not just civility. Sayerslle (talk) 18:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Better yet, you and Sopher should start working according to the rules instead of edit-warring and POV pushing with biased sourcs, so you don't get blocked indef and leave editing to us evil Assadists.FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
first time I came across you was you editing in a dishonest pov way - don't lecture me- read Carl Gustav Jung - you're projecting mate. Sayerslle (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, didn't you know Assad pre-emptively created Wikipedia to discredit the Syrian opposition, in case of a revolution? He hired me personally early on, roughly the same time he hired al-Baghdadi. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
you're so witty. kills me. Sayerslle (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's all we Shabiha are good for: kills by machete or bad jokes. FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
or kills by cynicism - "Most of the important people in these extremist groups were in Saidnaya prison, not just Zahran Aloush. There were many of them and the regime let them go very deliberately," the former intelligence officer said." Sayerslle (talk) 20:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
... And then the opposition welcomed them with open arms for some reason, and the Saudis and Qataris armed them. No one forced them to. Furthermore, the Islamists are the best fighters of the opposition, FSA would had been extinct long ago without them. No one has done more damage to the regime than the Islamists. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
what the regime says, versus, what the regime does - "Bashar al-Assad is one smart mass murderer. He has been saying all along that he is fighting al Qaeda and not a revolutionary movement of the Syrian people while at the same time letting al Qaeda leaders, many of them known terrorists and murderers, out of his prisons so they can provide "leadership" to the al Qaeda like groups, the ISIS and al Nusra, that are proving to be a boon to him and a plague on the democratic opposition. Assad also has a practise of bombing Syrian civilians in schools, hospitals and breadlines while leaving the camps and headquarters of these groups untouched." you agreed it was 'divide and rule' - that's called cynicism, not 'fighting terrorism' Sayerslle (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Seems like you (and various "analysts") are conveniently ignoring my obvious points above. Answer me this: Is Saudi Arabia allied with Syria?FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Is iran? is Russia? I believe Saudi Arabia and Qatar are talked of as hostile to the assad regime. iran and Russia are significant backers. this section is about how popular Assad is in reality - fine, so have a democratic election. its over 40 years of house of assad and power does have a tendency to corrupt - (I personally believe that is an 'archetypal' rule, nothing personal against any regime.)Sayerslle (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so if Saudi Arabia is against Assad, why do they fund ISIL, Nusra and the likes, if these are apparently Assad's puppets? FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
do you accept the regime is cynical torturer regime? as for the rest, i don't know , maybe sectarian hatred and idiocy is blinding them to the way they aid their rivals - but reality continues whatever, look at twitter, 3 hours ago 'Charles Lister ‏@Charles_Lister 3 hrs

Pro-ISIS sources claim an ISIS suicide bomber just carried out a large bombing in Anadan, #Aleppo, "killing many apostates.” #Syria Charles Lister ‏@Charles_Lister 3 hrsPT: That reference to “apostates” was intended to suggest members of the “Sahwat” - i.e. Islamic Front, Jaish al-Mujahideen, SRF etc.- ' - imo Assad/ISIS are two sides of an extremist , torture/murder/authoritarian coin - that is not the same as saying 'allied' Sayerslle (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Lol, always diverting attention away from the questions you can't answer. Anyhow, do you accept that Syria has a less "tortuous regime" than your own country? And where's Tippy with his "hats"? FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
torturer/tortuous, I think your English is bad there- - what questions I cant answer? why is Hezbollah terror good to you but Sunni terror bad? why? oh, yes, the arc of prgressive axis of - bullshit. Sayerslle (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Forgot the question? Let me repeat and simplify: If Assad somehow "created" ISIL, does that mean their main backers, Saudi Arabia, is allied with Assad? And I had no problem with "Sunni terrorist groups" when they still fought Israelis and Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. But now they're basically serving America and Israel, because their sugar daddy Saudi Arabia wants them to (always to weaken Iran), so I have no love for them. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
and torturer Assad[21]- you still have love for the regime? ISIL thinks it is its own state or something ? like a rival to Saudi Arabia , or a trans-nationalcaliphate -? thePFLP-GC seem diabolical, - what is their origin? I know its not a forum,- its a morass Sayerslle (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Seems like you still can only post links to random blogs written by biased nobodies, and not answer the nagging question. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
and you just brush off mass torture, you have to be 'somebody' to be listened to - power worship 'gone mad'- manipulating extremists, cynically releasing terrorists - this is not saying 'established' and 'created' - it is a ***collusion kind of thing.The relationship between al Qaeda and the Syrian regime is not new. "In September 2007, U.S. forces in the northern Iraqi town of Sinjar, twelve miles from the Syrian border, discovered computers and a cache of documents that included the records of more than 600 foreign fighters who had infiltrated into Iraq between spring 2006 and summer 2007. The documents show Syrian involvement in facilitating the entry of jihadists/Islamic terrorists into Iraq to frustrate what the Syrian regime dubbed as the "American Project in Iraq". Sayerslle (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Lol at your constant derailments. Your country is the leading world expert in "mass torture" and brushing off civilians as "collateral damage". That is a fact. And don't forget your allies, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. I don't see you getting your knickers in a twist and playing Wiki-hero over that. FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
- 'its all foreign manipulation' is what hafez said too, this thread lihaas, the pro-Jobbik bloke (why is Assad so very popular with European Nazis btw? - fascists of every kind love him)- anyway - lihaas said Assad is very popular, so, fine, just have free democratic elections . - I am british - is my country a 'leading world expert' in mass torture? - anyhow, two wrongs don't make a right -warontherocks article recommended by Charles Lister on Assad/AQ talk[22] Sayerslle (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Good job with the constant derailments. I guess it means you have no actual counter-arguments, so I'll just stop it here. FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
i'll just stop here too then -[23] Sayerslle (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Breaking News: Syria army captures town in strategic Homs province

To all supporters of the Free Syrian Army, if Assad had lost the level of support you maintain, why is he still in power - and winning battles? For just a year or so back, the MSM was about to report his defeat. Talk about the snatching defeat from the jaws of victory? (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

iRan/ Hezbollah/ Iraqi Shia Islamic politics make up for what the regime lacks in democratic and wide popular support maybe Sayerslle (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


Please Insert Islamic State of Iraq and Levant into a 4th combatant. and Add Syrian Electronic Army to the government side. Architect2014 (talk) 16:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Thank you

S.e.a. is not a combatant. Sopher99 (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC) fair enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Architect2014 (talkcontribs) 19:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Fourth columns cannot be made due to technical limitations apparently. And even if they could, we shouldn't, they still claim to be allied. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Not done: for technical reasons and the lack of reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Advanced weaponry and tactics

create subtitle shelling of peaceful quarters as sources cite a few long movies (20 to 40 minutes), in which the residents of districts talk to the camera, not hiding who they are and where and when, who and when and how to shoot (shooting / firing). references will be the most usual[1],[2],[3],[4]/. but these films are available in Russian. I hope this is not a problem? --Rqasd (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

  • the subtitle of the shelling of peaceful quarters

text - TV channels # 1 and # 2 shot several films, including documentaries and just movies) with numerous and detailed stories about firing from the side of***** [1],[2],[3]. In these films, people talk about attacks not hiding his face and place of event, and the time when it was.

References 1. [] (sources in Russian language) 2. [](sources in Russian language) 3. [](sources in Russian language) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rqasd (talkcontribs) 09:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

+ 2 video documentary Russian but with subtitles in English — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rqasd (talkcontribs) 03:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC) the third source in English [1]+besides that there is an English language site of the company. the links from this source in the original links, very easily transferred by Internet browsers automatically, and with good quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rqasd (talkcontribs) 03:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

  • (ITAR-TASS and Russia-24 (TV channel) and Russia-1 (TV channel))'t I just delete immediately 3 different source from 3 different and very very major news agencies working for many years around the world simply because it is for you unconvincing. I have filed a grievance and prove that the opinion of 3 different media much powerful than your own.--Rqasd (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

among the stories taken by these companies is he that was applied by the United Nations Commission for the investigation of the use of chemical weapons in Syria (one of the sources for confirmation of my words, there are many other, more reputable) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rqasd (talkcontribs) 07:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a question -- and I really don't mean to be rude. Your English is, well, not good. I'm used to working with editors from Russia, the Middle East, France, Spain, etc., and it's sometimes tricky to understand them, but I really can't understand you at all (and hopefully somebody else can help me out here, because I don't just want to discount everything you're saying!). Considering that English is clearly a somewhat difficult language for you to write in, why are you editing the English-language Wikipedia and not the Russian-language Wikipedia? (I assume you're from Russia, based on the sources you've provided.)
More to the point of your content itself: as I've explained to you (or tried to explain, anyway) elsewhere, YouTube videos are not acceptable as WP:RS in this context, and the state-owned media enterprises you present as sources are viewed with a pretty skeptical eye because of the rampant censorship and propaganda tradition in Russia (which isn't unique to that country, but I digress). I don't consider them RS myself, and I don't think there's consensus that the content is reliable and noteworthy. And considering you have now been reverted thrice by two different editors, and at least one other editor has expressed a complaint about the content, I think you need to slow down. If you really want to see this content included, you can try to obtain consensus for it, or try to advance a compromise under which less objectionable material can be included (perhaps with stronger citations, if any are available). But considering the language barrier both in our interactions and in the source material you want to include, IMO, it would be a better bet for you to bring this up on -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Well. Then for a consensus. Look new edition, here.

In addition, the new version unambiguously says that the media reported. If you want I can even delete the Video. But what then? you tell that need sources to translation? And, this Video is a record of ether TV channel, it is not mounting. It is not unprofessional video, this is *news release* TV .

  • You are not (!) can you talk about the unreliability of the (biased) media, just because you say so. Need a source of such information, where is said that my media is bad media, specifically: what I used this lie.

Rqasd (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not exactly a secret that Russian media is manipulated to favor the Kremlin's angle. We've had this discussion about the likes of RT and Pravda. Attributing statements from these dubious sources is better than not, but I really don't think these belong in the article any more than propaganda from SANA or Press TV does. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  • not a secret, that *you* lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, deceived (lied) United States (USA) USA-deceiver. and I say unto you, that this is NOT the FORUM. you *moderator *and must know it. your personal opinion without a source of absolutely negligibly.

or you want appearance of the article about freedom of speech in the USA reached what any person can. he provided no evidence to convict in a lie, several foreign corporations. I understand you correctly?Rqasd (talk)11:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)?

In reply to Kudzu1: Well, it seems that the articles of the free Western media about war can be traced back to government sources over 90% of the time as well. Perhaps the "fog of war" applies equally to both sides, or at least more than is generally acknowledged. Esn (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I think I have enough knowledge of English to do this: Wikipedia:the Challenge of administrative actionRqasd (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Uh...okay. Go for it. You do realize that I'm not in the U.S. government, right? I'm just some guy on Wikipedia like everybody else? Okay. I can't really parse anything you said beyond that...seriously, can somebody help me out here? -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
  • help me (PLEASE), make an application (request), the fact that a third party has confirmed / denied my sources. it is in the rules.+ I'll add another TV company (only commercial, 100%). but it has no translation, but, however I just use only 1 phrase ( from all of these sources). I can get other translations (from the owners of the film - companies). but. this is unlikely. 1 phrase - is not *original research* (the rules prohibit this). only a short conclusion.--Rqasd (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
in the result. I use design: = official source (link)+free copyright (translation (link)). +delete part of the non-translatable sources. it is so much better?

this design = 2 source, will give a result. Verifiability (validity/reliability) for the source. which of them is propaganda, we will never know. but incorrectly have 1 version of truth. if 2 in reality. the article should be neutral. you can see *my* article and see. 50%+50% of versions. [[24]] --Rqasd (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

the neutrality of the article's content according to the rules for writing articles

this Chapter is very much needed article, because according to the rules, the article should be neutral, without this Chapter happen that there is only 1 party but not the second. I only use the documentary footage, the video, which was filmed by journalists, as well as reports of these and other journalists who lived for months in the place of events.

--Rqasd (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

look (my answer + the bottom (at the end) new variant of the edits: **mortars**).and Yes, I wrote in Russian about 30%, articles about Syria (civil war) and more than 50% of the article about Syria (war crimes). Me there are no claims, only the discussion and editing of edits, but not cancel deleting edits.

  • There are many fixes: in English and of the official English language sources.

look. if you are against such a contribution (if you are against this editing). please. detailed answer why. in order not to initiate administrative proceedings. --Rqasd (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC) you have reverted the edit, said - Undoing pov pushing and use of unreliable sources. I changed the edits. now there is no such problem? pov? unreliable sources - it is impossible. all sources is very authoritative media, they work *news*, worldwide, many years. if you do not have a source that ITAR-TASS's a lie (specifically those articles that I used), if you have no source (*battle for Syria* it's a lie). you can't delete my edits. it is outside the rules. in addition, I give the translation. I give references are free from copyright. in addition, the recording of TV ether (news release) this is the authoritative source. this is a verifiable source. moreover, *the battle for Syria* is a documentary film. other sources (if there are sources without translation tell me and I mend). but you can't simply delete all at once. my sources have become in Wikipedia. you can read about them that is large media (news)Rqasd (talk) 11:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rqasd (talkcontribs)

The problem goes much deeper. It is written as if there is a "civil war", but how can foreign fighters constitute part of the common people? Another problem is that it is called "arab spring", but this is long past by now (3 years past). The article wording itself right now is NOT accurate and not neutral nor objective. It should be rewritten - it is definitely not a "civil war" like the american civil war was. (talk) 09:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
same as in Spanish civil war with Nazis and Italian fascists and international brigades - stil called Spanish civil war - we follow what RS call things I believe - think of the foreign Russian influence, and Iranian and Hezbolah and Iraqi Shia as playing a role similar to the fascists and Nazis in spain maybe - anyhow we follow RS not the whims of individuals- probably you will find your view echoed in press TV or Russia Today since most people want to hear their views replicated and echoed and don't care a hang about reality. Ah, the vanity ! Sayerslle (talk) 11:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Lol at your revisionism. The Nazis and ~Fascists helped Spanish rebels against the government of Spain, so obviously this matches the Syrian rebels and the foreign Salafists perfectly. Hezbollah would be more akin to the volunteers that supported the Spanish government. FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
lol at your thinking decades entrenched murderous corrupt House of Assad is analogous to the democratically elected Spanish Republican government of a few months duration -here is an intelligent leftist article. -(I know you only trust al-akhbar, but )[25]Sayerslle (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, I forgot that murderous, conservatively religious insurgents have more in common with a secular Socialist government than another secular Socialist government has. And not with likewise murderous, conservatively religious insurgents (the Francoists). Always count on Sayer for bafflingly counter-factual analogies. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Ah yeah I forgot the secular socialist modernist tolerant set -[26] - Assad let the extremists out in 2011 and he barrel bombs aleppansSayerslle (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

small mortars and rockets

Mass media reported:

ITAR-TASS official text of the [27],[28], [29], [30]

and Russia-24 (TV channel) free copyright *Syrian diary* [31] *the battle for Syria*[32] official video documentary *Syrian diary* [33] official video documentary and the official text of the *the battle for Syria* [34] video documentary Russian, but with English subtitles: *Syrian diary* [35] *the battle for Syria* [36]

and Russia-1 (TV channel) free copyright *truth of the war*[37] official video documentary *truth of the war*[38]

  • For more than two years, there are frequent shelling of peaceful neighborhoods throughout Syria Syrian opposition forces or controlled-Syrian opposition territory. There are other sources of talking or present confirming that the shelling is frequent and widespread throughout the country phenomenon[39].

and NTV (Russia) all of the shooting from the territory of the opposition, official video documentary *The territory of AK* [40] free copyright *The territory of AK* [41]: all this also claim (interview) commanders of the opposition (several different groups). In summary. Syrian opposition is fighting against Assad, and against *not Islamic* laws of religion. And against anything, not named (other troops Syrian opposition), but these groups are officially recognized by terrorists, but they do not give interviews and they are also part of the opposition.

small mortars and rockets Mass media[42][43][44] reported. Shelling civilian quarters by opposition militants. Such shellings are frequent and widespread. Sources: TV news air footage, documentary films(1-official video documentary and the official text of the *the battle for Syria* [45] video documentary + English subtitles: *the battle for Syria* [46] , 2-video documentary + English subtitles:*Syrian diary* [47]). There are also other sources confirming this phenomenon ([48],[49],[50], [51], [52]). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rqasd (talkcontribs) 13:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

option — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rqasd (talkcontribs) 12:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC) German+subtitles in German *Syrian diary* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rqasd (talkcontribs) 15:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC) English+subtitle in English+ text in English. about. the very good insurgents. ha ha ha ha — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rqasd (talkcontribs) 15:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Israel attacks again

It is becoming a bit of a joke that Israel isn't mentioned a bit more prominently, considering their constant attacks on Syrian interests, one more just yesterday.[53] Furthermore, Netanyahu has just shown his direct support for injured Syrian insurgents:[54][55] FunkMonk (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It occurred in Lebanon

You can put the attack here: Syrian Civil War spillover in Lebanon Sopher99 (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

How is that not a part of this conflict? (and yes, its me again) I don't expect you to admit you're wrong, but still, somebody ought to point out the absurdity of your position. -- Director (talk) 00:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Sopher, it happened on the border, it is unsure where exactly, and in any case, it is one of many attacks targeting the Syrian government block. As for the Netanyahu handshake, should speak for itself. Israel is basically pro-Syrian opposition. FunkMonk (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
The two sources you used for Netanyahu don't mention the words "insurgent" or even "rebel", it just says "injured Syrians". The second source only shows him slamming Iran and the Syrian government. So i think other sources are needed where it says he supports the rebels since these two don't. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
In any case, it is well known that Israel routinely treats wounded Syrian insurgents: [56][57] Combined with their recurring attacks on regime targets, their allegiance is obvious. FunkMonk (talk) 04:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
True, but that still doesn't suggest it openly supports the rebels nor does it prove that Israel is pro-Syrian opposition. I agree other sources make it clear that Israeli actions target the Syrian government's interests, but that's just it. And i honestly don't have an opinion on what should be done with this information but i hope you don't suggest it should be added in the infobox since it is too early to tell. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with @Sopher99, this raid against Hizbullah, belong to the spillover in Lebanon section. --Also while it is not clear from this article what exactly was targeted, previous attacks concerned arms shipment to Hizbullah, specifically various sophisticated types of rockets, which relate to their power strugle with Israel rather with no bearing on Syria civil war. If anything then attacks against Hizbullah such as this[58] which are a result of the civil war and intended to influence Hizbullah involvement in it are far more relevant.--PLNR (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

  • Israel has launched airstrikes on Syria before the civil war began, and will probably continue to do so after the civil war ends. Like the previous incidents, this attack doesn't make Israel a combatant in this conflict.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Japan and China had their quarrels long before WWII, once the war started they got involved on opposing sides. This is not different from the case of Syria and Israel.
The way I see it, Israelis have a history with both Syria and Hezbollah, they would rather see a couple of weak sectarian warlords than a strong secular regime on their border. We have seen Israel militarily targeting one side, with the consequence of bolstering the opposition throughout this war. The question is thus not whether Israel is involved, but whether this involvement merits inclusion in the infobox.--Kathovo talk 14:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

proxy war

This is called a proxy war by many RS: [59][60][61](Lihaas (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)).

You mean it should be mentioned in the introduction, right? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I assume Lihaas is in love with the beautiful word 'proxy war'? So what? Why should we mention where in the article that for example (Lihaas' first link) the totally obscure website enjoys calling this war a 'regional proxy war'? --Corriebertus (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the term "proxy war" is very appropriate in this case. Noting suggests that Salon is an obscure website and there are other sources calling it a proxy conflict → [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] Regards. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I introduced the term "proxy war" to the lede about half a year ago, but it was removed by someone believing in grassroots-revolution myth. Anyway, it is still valid. And with US and Russia playing their parts, it is definitely not a "regional" proxy war. --Emesik (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
It is not regional because the US is involved. But Russia supports a government not a proxy rebel group. Iran is the one involved in the proxy conflict with the US, not Russia. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
A government can be a proxy e.g. Iraq-Iran(USA/Soviet). In this case the idea is that Russia and Iran are extending its sphere of influence by Arming and supporting Assad. On the other hand you have the Arab League and various Nato members, who support and arm the rebels to topple Assad. Personally, I think we should start with improving the Syrian Civil War#Foreign_involvement and go from there.--PLNR (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Sure, but i still think the lead needs a mention of this term. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Of course it's a proxy war, with a heck of a lot more players than just the US and Russia (Saudi, Iran, Turkey, Qatar, etc.) but it is many other kinds of conflict as well. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Some might argue that their support is all what keeps the war wheels turning e.g. Iran analyst with Five Dimensions Consultant. "Well placed sources tell me 'the syrian army by now is a joke, they are in charge of the minor things. Without the Iranian they would have collapsed by now'." [72] that plus 15Bn in financial support, Hezbollah fighters, and Russia substantial contribution, kept Assad in power. While the other side was slower to react and not as active (especially in the last couple of month with ISIS), they wasn't idle by any means and now with failure of the peace talks there is a lot of talks about united frtont to support their "kind" of opposition.--PLNR (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
By the same token, the insurgents would have been extinct long ago if Turkey didn't let them operate across the border, if Islamist foreigners weren't joining them en masse, and if they didn't get financed by the Gulf and the West, etc. Not to forget the media war by Qatar and the West, which escalated the conflict early on with their exaggerated/modified narratives. FunkMonk (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The fact is that if most sources don't define this as a proxy war, it would be undue weight to put it there. Emphasis on most. A quick google search of "Syrian regime" and "nazis" gives me around 5 good sources on just the first page. Doesn't mean we add a "wars involving nazis" category. Sopher99 (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
What an inane comparison. My quick search on "Syrian regime" and "elephants" just gave me 2.190.000 hits. "Wars involving elephants" category? Context is quite important, don't ya think? Many sources say this is a proxy war, and this is not mutually exclusive of any other kind of war. FunkMonk (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, what kind of analogy is this? And since when do we rely on Google hits while we have more than enough RS calling it a proxy conflict? Even 5 sources like that would do just fine. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Where did I mention hits? I said 5 good sources just on the first page. Read people. Read. Sopher99 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how "good" the sources are, if they do not provide the context you claim. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

It is quite likely that it can be called a proxy war. But that is already obvious in the lead section when we write: "…2013, Hezbollah entered… support from Russia… Iran… Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United States …transfer weapons". We make Wikipedia, I believe, for normal and simple people, not only for internet addicts like you and me. Everyone knows the word 'war', 95% of the readers know the word 'civil war', but only 10% of normal citizens know the word 'proxy war'. Adding the poche word 'proxy war' gives no crucial extra information to the reader. Lead section should be as short and simple as possible. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That's what wikilinks are for. People might actually want to learn something new. FunkMonk (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The lead contains unnecessary stuff like Yarmouk but it doesn't link to Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War which is one of the biggest factors in the conflict and is what keeps both sides persisting to this day. I'm just proposing a simple phrase after "..transfer weapons to the rebels." that goes like this → The nature of this involvement led to the war being referred to as a proxy conflict. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Sounds sensible. Can't imagine anyone validly arguing against that. FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Article does not present a true picture of events in Syria - but attempts to give a simple-minded account of good freedom-loving rebels facing a totally evil government

It blames most of the human rights violations to the government forces, while all those thousands and thousands of you tube videos are showing cannibal rebels eating hearts and doing all kind of atrocities, beheadings included, while filming and celebrating about them. We are talking about endless videos here that they are posting themselves.

It does not mention the tens of thousands of rapes that were made by the rebels, it does not says the atrocities that the jihadists are doing in Syria. The article resembles more of a typical western mainstream media which always tries to propagandize against the one that the western politics doesn't like... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiorgosY (talkcontribs) 00:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

A lot of people agree with you, but you are going to need to provide sources. Unfortunately you are not able to use YouTube videos as sources and most of the sources deemed 'reliable' are Western sources that are vehemently pro-rebel/Islamist. You might be able to get by with Russia Today, but we have a few users here who will kick up a stink for using it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"Our new Syria crowdmap numbers of sexualizedviolence: 85% of reports show govt/shabiha perps of male & female attacks. Rest=unknown/FSA - [73]Sayerslle (talk) 23:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
What did you expect? Truth, freedom of speech? Please... Sure, we need to give sources from the media when contributing to the article? The thing is, pretty much every Syrian and non-Syrian pro-Government media outlet is sanctioned (taken off satellites, jammed), blocked or put offline (like DDoS attacks on happening right now for example). All we have are "neutral" media outlets which rarely tell the real truth. Do you now see how Wiki works? Now they'll accuse me of "anti-Americanism" or some similar nonsense.
  • you can see the article [74] in Russian language, and you can see: two very large tables, each of war crimes (al-Assad, / opposition), which is now in this article in English is almost all against al-Assad, and I think it's just laziness authors to not write about crimes of the opposition, reported by the UN, XRW, world health organization, representatives of mass media(Wall Street Journal and many others).Rqasd (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Pro-Americanism: when questioning why a still picture (from a Voice of America video) was used in the 'Photoshopped image' section, I was told: "Take your anti-Americanism to somewhere else." (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

And, more to the point - why now?

In the British Independent newspaper (22 Jan 2014) reporter Robert Fisk highlights whether we "should be asking a lot more questions than we have been asking about this portrait gallery of pain, unleashed only hours before an the international conference in Switzerland...

For he asks how long "have the Qatari authorities been in possession of this terrible eye-witness material? A couple of weeks, just enough time to rustle up the lawyers for the prosecution? Or a couple of months? Or six months? And, more to the point, why now? For it would be difficult to imagine a better way for Qatar - whose royal family viscerally hates Bashar al-Assad - to destroy his hopes of a future role in Syria, even in a 'transitional' Syrian government, than by releasing these snapshots of terror just before the Swiss talks." (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S: “Russia's peace deal over chemical weapons will, in time, be treated with the contempt that all militarists reserve for diplomacy. With Al-Qaida now among its allies, and US-armed coupmasters secure in Cairo, the US intends to crush the last independent states in the Middle East: Syria first, then Iran.” John Pilger, Guardian UK, 11 September 2013

Does not this suggest that reports of good 'freedom-loving' rebels -V- evil Syrian government are mostly sexed-up media stories - aimed at hiding real US policy aims in the Middle-East? (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

New page/s

Time to create Syrian civil war spillover in Iraq? [75]

Also Palestinians in the Syrian civil war is certainly notable.(Lihaas (talk) 11:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)).

Good Image (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

This map you posted contradicts the Wiki Template which is updated by non-biased people by the minute. You claim its march 2014 yet the map clearly has Yabroud under rebel control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Photoshopped image

Wounded civilians arrive at hospital Aleppo.jpg is quite clearly photoshopped and should be removed from the article.

Tychobrahesnose (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a still from a Voice of America video [76] You can see it at 0:20 --Երևանցի talk 04:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Well I never. The lighting and perspective just seem so unnatural. Appreciate you clearing this up. Tychobrahesnose (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

So it turns out to be a still from a Voice of America video - this fact alone should have set alarm bells ringing. File under: PRO-FSA DISINFORMATION? (talk) 21:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Take your anti-Americanism to somewhere else. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum. --Երևանցի talk 16:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The concept being anti-American is an interesting one. For the "counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships... "Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents were condemned as "anti-Soviet." That's a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture." Noam Chomsky — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

"This media is in the public domain because it is material provided by Voice of America, the official external radio and TV broadcasting service of the U.S. federal government." Wikipedia

Give there a risk that it was photo-faked, and considering it was from a US government outlet, should this picture still be used by world-wide Wikipedia? (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Picture: "A demonstration in the city of Banyas, Syria at the "Friday of rage" in 29 April 2011"

Despite editors attacking folks (as "anti-American") for questioning the use of a picture from Voice of America, why does Wikipedia continues the use a photo from the likes of Syria-Fames-Of-Freedom? For while such pro-FSA dis-information seems welcome - how long would information from Russia Today be allow to stay on-line? (Good to see that Wikipedia are keeping up standards - even if they are double:-) (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry: what's your problem? Would you mind telling that a bit precise and retrievable? Or is this page just only to express some of your frustrations? --Corriebertus (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Iran is a belligerent but Turkey and Israel aren't?


Turkey has to be added now. Today, Turkey's MP Erdogan declared that Turkey is at war with Syria in a post-election speech. "Turkey is at war with Syria, Erdoğan says in post-election speech" says-in-post-election-speech.html

Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Turkey's direct role in this is probably as big, if not bigger, than Iran's. FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
because of that article turkey 'has to be added now'? - it seems pretty poor grounds for such an imperative demand. apparently there is a savekessab hashtag being promoted at the moment by the regime and its presstv/russiatoday/allies to stop an ongoing continuation of the ottoman massacre of the Armenians - but is it true[77], - [78]? the article shouldn't let hysteria from russiatoday/fars.presstv/sana type povs overwhelm the article imo -to say turkeys role is 'probably as big, if not bigger, than Iran's' - is just a kind of 'what I reckon is this - ' kind of fatuous statement - and does it come from a RS, a non aligned , soberly neutral assessment? hardly. RS are needed to support what anyone 'reckons' imo Sayerslle (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Are you denying that the prime minister of Turkey stated yesterday that Turkey and Syria is at war? Are you denying that a Turkish National Security meeting took place mid-March where Head of Turkish Intelligence Hakan Fidan, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, and others, discussed "false flag" operations in Syria, including the sending of Turkish agents into Syria to fire missiles back into Turkey so that Turkey would have an excuse to attack Syria. A Turkish MP visiting Hatay reported that "According to information from villagers, thousands of fighters coming from Turkey crossed the border at at least five different points to launch the attack on Kassab. We ourselves observed dozens of Syrian-plated cars nonstop transporting terrorists" (see Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
RS , not "Al-Monitor mirrors and legitimizes the pro-Assad and pro-Hezbollah positions. Al-Monitor's owner is the Syrian Born Jamal Daniel, mates with assad regimepresident and chairman of Crest Investment Company in Texas, mostly involved in energy sector. Daniel's biography and his ties to the Syrian regime are detailed by numerous press articles" - the talk alluded to above was about attacking ISIS wasn't it anyhow?al monitor a pro Tehran website in washington Sayerslle (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Why are you quoting a Jewish website rather than answer my questions? The prime minister of Turkey has said, publically, that Turkey is at war with Syria - that, together with the ample evidence of past and ongoing Turkish direct and indirect involvement in the conflict, should be more than enough for Turkey to be now considered a beligerant in the war. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
"The Turkish Aydinlik Dayly (AD) cites Mehmed Ali Ediboglu, an MP for Turkey’s largest opposition party CHP, as saying that the Syrian armed forces have shot down a Turkish drone over the Syrian city of Kassab." ... "Eyewitnesses reported to nsnbc international that the Turkish military is targeting Syrian army positions with artillery and tank shells and that Turkish special forces had been observed in the area." ... "CHP Member of Parliament, Mehmed Ali Ediboglu, visited the Turkish – Syrian border area in Yayladagi after heavy clashes erupted in the region. Ediboglu stated that the Turkish military allows and controls insurgents moves while they are crossing the border to and from Syria." Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm just saying RS would be good, not just a few random quotes from non-RS and pro-Assad regime websites like al-monitor - it seems to me you have a kind of proxy war view to push again - like the Assad regime has no real internal opponents to its corrupt tyranny - just has to deal with puppets and foreign enemies- bit simplistic maybeSayerslle (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Al Monitor is RS. TodaysZaman is RS. So we have RS stating that Turkey's prime minister considers Turkey to be at war with Syria, we have RS reporting that Turkey has been allowing free access through its border to those attacking Syria, and citing a named Turkish MP as an eyewitness source, we have RS reporting on the shooting down of a Syrian jet by Turkish jets, we have RS reporting of the recorded conversation showing the plotting and arms-supply admitting at the Turkish National Security building in Ankara that both Erdogan and one of the participants have confirmed as being genuine. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
If RS say Turkey is playing a role significant as Iran regime and Hezbollah then o.k - but do they really? Sayerslle (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
How is Turkey doing less than Iran? FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Well they don't have troops on the ground in Syria, unlike Iran's Revolutionary Guard. However they do seem to be a belligerent party to the conflict Gazkthul (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The recent audio leaks revealed that they do have Turkish generals on the ground in Syria. FunkMonk (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please gentlemen, give us some facts, otherwise I can’t take any position in this discussion. Tiptoe (31/3) refers to Erdogan saying something in a speech, but speeching is not warring; what are exactly Turkey’s acts of war? Just screaming this or that is for me not enough to be (in this context) called ‘belligerent’. Same to FunkMonk. A ‘fighter coming from Turkish territory’ (Tiptoe) is not the same as the Turkish state warring. If you have ‘ample evidence’, give us some. (I stopped reading your lengthy postings after 1April,14:32.) --Corriebertus (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

1949 coup and context of modern Syrian history - 2

Again, I see that earlier talk page consensus, favoring a brief description of the 1949 CIA-backed coup in the background section of this article, has been ignored and the reference removed. Here is a link to that earlier discussion, and here is a link to the last post I made on this issue. I can't find a reference to the talk page consensus having changed. If anyone has a link to demonstrate otherwise, please let me know. -Darouet (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I still think we need a new background article for this kind of stuff. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Who leads al-Nusra?

Any chance to figure out who led or leads al-Nusra? The page says Abu Mohammad al-Golani and the source in the infobox is dead. There is a news from today that Abu Mohammad al-Ansari has been killed by ISIL, and they call him "head of al-Nusra". --Emesik (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

al-Golani remains the groups overall leader of Emir. From the linked source: "Ansari headed the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Al-Nusra Front in Idlib province" Gazkthul (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Proxy war

Can someone explain me what is wrong in the term "proxy war" when referring to this conflict? There are hundreds of sources where that term is being used. What more do you need? --Emesik (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this someone's opinion though? The New York Times for example: [79] the wording is taken out of the opinion pages. The guardian is using the term so I suppose you can use "according to the guardian" or "Guardian editor Fawaz Gerges has called Syria's civil war a proxy war" something like that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Do you really want me to enumerate all the people who use that term, instead of writing "often referred to"? --Emesik (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I did a quick check the other day and innumerable reliable news sources refer to it as a proxy war, among other things. Their coverage reflects the reality that regional and even international tensions and conflicts (Iran and Saudi Arabia, Russia and the United States) find expression or become involved in the conflict. Efforts to omit the wider context of the war aren't being explained, but they do a disservice to readers. -Darouet (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
one thing I noticed just typing in 'is the Syrian civil war a proxy war' and then seeing what the search term revealed, is that most of the articles deliverd up a) were opinion pieces and b) suggested the civil war had evolved into a proxy war - so if the proxy war bit stays , I think the refs should a) be improved upon ,and b) wonder if this sense that it began as something and then has evolved into something changed, over time, should be written into the text as it exists. ( also if it is a disservice to readers 'to omit the wider context' that doesnt mean we should mischaracterise internal opposition who have been ruthlessly suppressed [80] - I have a sense the 'proxy war' emphasis seeks to portray the Syrian opposition of Syrians as agents of foreign powers - it need brilliant RS if it is to stay imo , not op-eds on, whatever is anyhow)Sayerslle (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Why do you read it as blaming only one side of the conflict? Doesn't the term "proxy war" also mean that the government is somehow allowing their country to be a playground for other powers' wrestling? It is good to calm down a little and try to be neutral. Is the war in Syria still government vs. popular uprising? No, it is not. Are foreign players on the stage, including powers from outside of the region? Yes, they are. As for the evolution, I'm absolutely OK with a statement that the conflict evolved into a proxy war. --Emesik (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Fitzcarmalan for this edit, which also reverted material I added, and thanks Sopher99 for this compromise. -Darouet (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Foreign involvement

here (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)