Talk:Syrian civil war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Syria (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Arab world (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Archives
Topical archives

Rebel groups[edit]

Introduction section was edited to make article misleading. Introoduction part should describe the nature of the conflict and oposing forces. The information about opositioon was deleted on 1st November and introduction only describes Government forces. The follwing section should be reincluded into intrduction:

The armed opposition consists of various groups that were either formed during the course of the conflict or joined from abroad. In the north-west of the country, the main opposition faction is the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front allied with numerous other smaller Islamist groups, some of which operate under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army (FSA).[1] The designation of the FSA by the West as a moderate opposition faction allows it, under the CIA-run programmes,[2][3][4] to receive sophisticated weaponry and other military support from the U.S. and some Gulf countries that effectively increases the total fighting capacity of the Islamist rebels.[5][6] In the east, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a jihadist militant group originating from Iraq, made rapid military gains in both Syria and Iraq. ISIL eventually came into conflict with other rebels, especially with Al-Nusra, leaders of which did not want to pledge allegiance to ISIL. By July 2014, ISIL controlled a third of Syria's territory and most of its oil and gas production, thus establishing itself as the principal anti-government force.[7] As of 2015, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are openly backing the Army of Conquest, an umbrella rebel group that reportedly includes an al-Qaeda linked al-Nusra Front and another Salafi coalition known as Ahrar ash-Sham, and Faylaq Al-Sham, a coalition of Muslim Brotherhood-linked rebel groups.[8][9][10] Also, in the north-east, local Kurdish militias such as the YPG have taken up arms and have fought with both rebel Islamist factions[11] and government loyalists.[12]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.70.4.126 (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2015‎ (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "FSA brigade 'joins al-Qaeda group' in Syria - Al Jazeera English". aljazeera.com. Retrieved 21 October 2015. 
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference larger was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference covert was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference trim was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Nabih Bulos (22 September 2015). "US-trained Division 30 rebels 'betray US and hand weapons over to al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria'". The Telegraph (London). 
  6. ^ "Syria rebels and TOW missiles - Business Insider – Saudi Arabia just replenished Syrian rebels with one of the most effective weapons against the Assad regime". businessinsider.com. Retrieved 21 October 2015. 
  7. ^ Patrick Cockburn. Isis consolidates
  8. ^ Kim Sengupta (12 May 2015). "Turkey and Saudi Arabia alarm the West by backing Islamist extremists the Americans had bombed in Syria". The Independent (London). 
  9. ^ "Gulf allies and ‘Army of Conquest’". Al-Ahram Weekly. 28 May 2015.
  10. ^ "'Army of Conquest' rebel alliance pressures Syria regime". Yahoo News. 28 April 2015.
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference fr-kurdes-chassent-des-jihadistes was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Cite error: The named reference pydkills was invoked but never defined (see the help page).


Syrian Turkmen Brigades, Turkmen Mountain ,Syrian Turkmen Assembly and Bayırbucak ,

The Sultan Murat Brigades took control of the villages on Azaz-Jarablus front in northern Aleppo province alongside troops from the Damascus Front, a group fighting ISIL and regime forces. Turkmen seize Syrian villages controlled by ISIL

National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces Turkman Component of the Syrian National Coalition

Since Russia began air strikes on the Turkmen mountains in north-west Syria last month, nearly 5,000 people from the country's ethnic Turkmen minority have fled their homes. Many have crossed the border into Turkey's Hatay province, their plight overshadowed by a diplomatic row between Turkey and Russia.The Syrian Turkmen taking flight from Russian bombing

Provided evidence of the support of the Turkish military forces (for artillery fire large caliber) and the purchase oil off the terrorists.)[edit]

Provided evidence of the support of the Turkish military forces (for artillery fire large caliber) and the purchase oil off the terrorists.)

Jump up ^ https://russian.rt.com/article/145541 Jump up ^ http://lifenews.ru/news/182947 Jump up ^ http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/1579521/video/

References[edit]

Turkmens can be showed as an entity like YPG and YPJ on infobox[edit]

With the recent advancements on Turkish border (liberation of 20 Turkmen villages and Çobanbey town and border crossing) and in Aleppo (gaining of a vicinity from YPG) by Syrian Turkmen Brigades of the Syrian Turkmen Assembly (part of Syrian Opposition), I think Syrian Turkmen Brigades can be showed on the infobox. Sputnik, Anadolu Agency, Haber7, Al Jazeera

Turkmens, Syrian Turkmen Assembly and Syrian Turkmen Brigades "must" be mentioned in the Syrian Opposition part since they are currently the driving opposition force in North Aleppo and center of the Turkey's Syria policy. - Berkaysnklf (talk) 7 April 2016, 18:12 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.75.198.117 (talk)

We did not have consensus![edit]

Once again this page was moved to lowercase without consensus. Not to mention the fact the more people opposed the move than supported it in the above discussion. This page should be moved back immediately and put under protection against future moves without consensus. Charles Essie (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I would take it back to move review. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
What aspect of the close do you dispute? WP:CONSENSUS does not involve only vote counting, the merits of the arguments should be taken into consideration too. The close above is quite detailed, and I think is a reasonable summary of the discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I recognize that it's not only vote counting but the summary of the discussion does not take into account that even so there was no still consensus. For example, it didn't even mention the very good points made by 2601:CB:8001:28EB:E5FD:FC8:E274:5446 in the last entry which I think could have been the clinging arguement. Charles Essie (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
The last argument says we should not use Google searches to determine whether something is a proper name, but does not offer any insight into what we should do instead. Note that the purpose of the Google search is not to do a count of unreliable sources, but to try to drill down to the *reliable* sources, which includes news media and books, and see what they say. If they, the high quality reliable sources, don't consistently capitalise, then neither should we, even if we think they're wrong. We aren't here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or to supply WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH on the matter. I agree that the close did not address that point though.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
He also mentioned that this title has been capitalized for years (which I might add was the result of a discussion that had consensus) and that the only reason we're even having this discussion is because someone moved this page without any prior discussion. Charles Essie (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Considering the many earlier extensive discussions, there was prior consensus in favor of lowercase twice (July 2012 and August 2012) and for uppercase once (November 2013), hence my determination that there was no longstanding stable consensus title and we should defer to the house style, knowing that obviously the result can't please everyone. If you wish to argue for uppercase again, I would suggest opening a policy discussion at WP:NCCAPS or MOS:CAPS rather than rehashing this particular case. — JFG talk 08:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The capitalized title was longer standing than the lower-case title. It also was the last title to have been agreed to through consensus. We've had it for two and a half years without any issue until someone moved it without discussion. Charles Essie (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
The arguments made in the 2012 discussion were stronger than those made in the 2013, as they talked to our policies and guidelines, and actual evidence of usage out there in the real world. The 2013 relied mostly on consistency. But as plenty of people have said, consistency is self fulfilling and can perpetuate incorrect titles. There was a time when every single bird was capitalised, but then we moved away from that.[1] It's probably time to re-evaluate a lot of the Civil War articles.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
That still doesn't preclude my argument that within the past month this article was moved to lowercase twice without clear consensus. See WP:NOCON ("When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted"). Charles Essie (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I didn't offer an alternative because others had already done so; consistency with other articles on wars. It'd be easier to simply change the title later if and when the Oxford Dictionary or the Encyclopedia Britannica (or whatever authority tends to write war titles historically) offers a different title than to the one that exists in the wiki article. This should NOT have been closed arbitrarily yet again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8001:28EB:8DE0:71AC:76E5:158B (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
  • That is because they are an encyclopedia that doesn't deal with month long circular discussions, but rather a few writers. I wasn't there but I am sure the discussion went something like this:
  • Editor 1: "Hmm should we put Civil War in caps?"
  • Editor 2: "Eh... sure why not?"
- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • There's no way we can no that for sure. Charles Essie (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah I dunno where the implication that they somehow put less thought into their articles than Wikipedia comes from, but thats complete weaksauce as an argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8001:28EB:8950:7B4B:62A6:7648 (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • From what I saw, the vote to maintain the name as it was had a clear majority. It would seem that there is an ironclad desire to have the name moved to lowercase letters in spite of the Encyclopedia Britannica and several other sources using uppercase letters, and the arguments presented in the discussion before the last one. The overwhelming majority of civil war articles have their names capitalized, and as far as it see it now, there is no legitimate argument to have the last few civil war articles in lowercase letters. If anything, the trend of using lowercase letters in civil war articles is relatively recent, and seems to have no rationale outside of the "but no one else seems to capitalize the words" argument. Wikipedia is suppose to follow encyclopedic standards, and the Encyclopedia Britannica, the standard to which all other encyclopedias are measured, capitalizes the letters in the name. I see no reason why this is still an ongoing issue, as well as why this article was renamed in spite of lack of consensus combined with the clear majority of those opposed to the move. Vivaporius (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Vivaporius: As the closer, I feel that I need to respectfully counter your criticisms of the decision.
  1. Consensus is not a vote count, and there was anyway no "clear majority" in this discussion (4 Support, 5 Oppose, 3 Neutral including nominator).
  2. There is no "ironclad desire" of imposing any style: various editors expressed themselves freely in many debates, defending both spelling variants, and as mentioned in my closure rationale I was never involved in prior discussions or in editing the relevant articles.
  3. Yes, many other civil war articles are capitalized, but moving to lowercase is not a "recent trend", it is a longstanding policy, which was indeed already applied to this very article by consensus in the 2012 debates.
  4. The 2013 debate did support caps but the 2012 debates had many more participants and comprehensive rationales; I have given due weight to arguments presented in all titling discussions from 2012 to 2016.
  5. Your own arguments in favour of caps, which led to the move of 31 May 2016, were refuted by Amakuru in the move review. The clear consensus outcome of the review was to relist, arguing lack of consensus on moving back to caps and premature close citing your rationale.
  6. Finally, if you consider Britannica's titling standards superior to Wikipedia's, you should strive to change the house style, for example by opening a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (capitalization).
Now let us all drop the stick, have a tea and carry on. — JFG talk 09:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
A nice cup of tea...
Mmmm, tea. I'll have mine milk with no sugar please!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
It true that when this article was re-capitalized last month the discussion did was closed prematurely. But what we're forgetting here is that just before that this article was moved to lowercase without consensus in the first place. It should've have reverted immediately and then we could have had a proper discussion (which likely would've resulted in no consensus). Because of this I must insist that we revert to the capitalized title because it was the last title to have been agreed to through consensus. Charles Essie (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed with Charles Essie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.26.232 (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
How many rounds of move reviews would be enough? Meanwhile people are dying in this war… Not sure they care much about MOS:CAPS, WP:PETTIFOGGERY or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — JFG talk 18:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
It isn't about the people in the war. What they have to do with the argument has no basis other than what I consider an appeal to emotion. I'm not familiar with Amakuru's rebuke, and I don't believe I read it. Regardless, on your statement on consensus, who determines how "strong" an argument is? The fact that many were swayed into the oppose camp based upon the arguments presented, was a clear indication as to which argument was the most convincing. The vote was 6-4, not 5-4. The fact that there is a clear majority of those opposed to the use of lowercase letters and more support of the arguments they have put forth, shows that the consensus was not on the other side. While I understand the policy on consensus, I have yet to see who decides what is considered a "convincing" argument, and why they are moving articles without them. The move was opposed on multiple occasions, and their arguments were no doubt strong enough to maintain the status quo. You ask how many more reviews are needed to put this to an end, and I agree. The first review maintaining the name as it was capitalized should have been enough, as well as the one following it. Yet that was not enough. I only see one group pushing the matter, and as far as I have seen, it wasn't us. Vivaporius (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
For the record, I didn't rebuke anyone - I believe the word used above was "refute", and is presumably referring to this - [2] - where I analysed your comment and explained why I disagreed with it. You're perfectly right as well, that the horrors of the civil war have no bearing on whether or not we discuss the capitalization of the name. With regard to who assesses whether arguments are convincing, historically it has always been an administrator, or otherwise an experienced non-admin closer. The key thing is that they examine the arguments and match them to written policy and guidelines, in addition to simple vote counting... per WP:CONSENSUS, both parts are important.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for the poor usage of wording on my part. I didn't mean to use that particular word in my post. You have a point as to the latter half of your statement, though given the general majority and arguments on the pro -cap side, I would have liked to see some acknowledgement of that before the move. However, at this point we are kicking the can with no clear end in sight. I have no further statement on the subject. Vivaporius (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
If both are important than what happens when they condradict one another or when policy gives legitimacy to both arguements? Doesn't that mean "no consensus"? Charles Essie (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Revert to whatever was the previous consensus until the contradiction can be hashed out, then revisit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8080:C11C:B909:880A:7580:5569 (talk) 00:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Charles Essie (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - the closure of the last rename is clearly miscarried; there is a solid majority not to move the page - how come it moved?!GreyShark (dibra) 13:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • My point exactly. We should move it back. Charles Essie (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Disagreements on page ‘Free Syrian Army’[edit]

Controversy seems to have arisen on page Free Syrian Army (FSA) as to whether certain information should be presented to Wiki readers or should be withheld from those readers. For those interested: please go and have a look at Talk:Free Syrian Army#Strength and doubts about its existence (as army), and comment overthere. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Battle dropdown is skewed[edit]

I dunno why it is, nor do I know how to fix it, but when the battle list is dropped down, it skews to the side slightly. Can anyone fix it who knows how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8080:C11C:419E:6F61:FDB:1F37 (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

FARC[edit]

Per https://mobile.twitter.com/todayinsyria/status/757201902836785152 and http://ninovanews.co.uk/2016/07/24/farc-gerillalari-rojavada-iside-karsi-savasacak/, the FARC intends to support Rojava in the war against ISIL. Should this be added to the infobox now, or do we need more evidence of FARC's participation first? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 02:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

If it is not fighting on the ground, it is not a belligerent. FunkMonk (talk) 03:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)