Jump to content

Talk:Free Syrian Army

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

Definition of what is and what is not FSA?

[edit]

As the talk page of the Southern Front shows, there seems to be disagreement between editors on what makes an individual brigade/battalion/movement/etc. part of the FSA. As someone who has followed this conflict closely since early 2014, I can attest that most analysts consider the "Free Syrian Army" to be less of an "army" and more of a "banner". In other words, it's not an official organization with an official leadership and member list recognized by all FSA groups (although there have been attempts to do just that). Any group that identifies itself as part of the FSA is considered part of the FSA. Not all FSA groups use the traditional Free Syrian flag in their logos (see Army of Mujahideen and the Army of Dignity/Jaysh al-Izzah), and not all groups that use the traditional Free Syrian flag are considered part of the FSA (see Authenticity and Development Front). Assuming other people here concur with this definition, I think we ought to make this definition clear in the article - perhaps even devoting a section to it. We would need to gather sources for this definition of course; at the moment I don't have time to do that but hopefully I will in the next few days. Bulbajer (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bulbajer: I think your suggestion is an excellent one, and other editors will support you, if you have the time to implement your proposed changes. -Darouet (talk) 17:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The ADF's main group, the New Syrian Army, does consider itself to be part of the Free Syrian Army, as it constantly uses FSA branding and specifically add "Syrian Arab Republic-Free Syrian Army" in its statements.[1], a reliable source that explicitly state that the ADF, the Southern Front, etc are not part of the FSA would be needed to cite such a bold statement. Thus, as you said, any group that identifies itself as part of the FSA is considered part of the FSA as there is no official list of FSA groups by the SMC/SRCC/SNC except for the RFS statement which included the ADF and the SF. Editor abcdef (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bulbajer,abcdef: I notice Bulbajer saying (and abcdef agreeing) that “most analysts consider the FSA” to be a ‘banner’ more than an ‘army’. Sorry friends, would you mind to corroborate such far-reaching presumptions/theses (or how should I call them)?
How can anyone possibly contradict such a statement about “most analysts” if you don’t indicate at least some of them? Presently, the FSA is a “group”, that’s what our article on FSA says, and its formal leader(ship) is being described in its § ‘Command structure’. If you consider all that incorrect (and can prove that with serious corroboration) it is time for you to start ‘correcting’ that article—and not just only make such suggestions/assertions (possibly reflecting how you’d wish FSA to be considered by the world: ‘wishful thinking’), here and on several other Talk pages.
“Any group that (…) is considered part of the FSA”, you state. ‘Considered’ by whom? By you? And by whom else? (Editor abcdef ofcourse(1 July), but whom else?) Wikipedia is not for describing how Wiki editors consider things and hope for the rest of the world to consider them too, but to reflect how (reliable) sources describe the reality.
Abcdef states that New Syrian Army “considers itself part of the FSA”. Perhaps, but I can’t find that referenced anywhere in that article—so why should we believe you stating that, abcdef? If you (or Bulbajer) disagree with certain Wikipedia articles, please start repairing them, instead of only throwing all such uncorroborated (but wished-for?) assumptions/(would-be-'certainties') on quite many Talk pages. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


The FSA is currently just a label representing an idea/value system held by a wide range of groups, some of which are fighting each other (Hawar Kilis coalition identifies as FSA but fights SDF which also contains groups identifying as FSA, ie. Front of Raqqa Revolutionaries). It has in past been a loose coalition, as Bulbajer says, and there have been instances where it has been briefly unified under a single command. Overall, the FSA as a historical entity is not a unified military, a loose coalition, or a vague label, but has been all three at different points.Oscar666kta420swag (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Memberships of FSA

[edit]

There’s a lot of discussion going on among politicians, journalists and commentators about the existence of FSA (as a real, combative, structured army), its strength, et cetera – see the current lead section and Infobox of article Free Syrian Army and its section 7 ‘Questions of existence, combativeness and structure’. In that light, I believe Wikipedia should be scrupulous about acknowledging/confirming any presumed/alleged membership of individual groups of FSA.

Presently, the Infobox lists some 59 “groups”. 29 of them bear a reference purportedly underpinning its membership of FSA. Another 19 refer to a separate main article with a ‘blue’ wikilink, suggesting the underpinning takes place in that article. Another 11 have neither reference nor ‘blue’ wikilink. To achieve a more neutral and correct presentation of the FSA’s strength and size, I propose to split up that list of groups, inserting a new §3 ‘Memberships’, with two subsections:

  • 3.1 ‘Current members’: those that are correctly underpinned as such in article FSA or in wikilinked main article;
  • 3.2 ‘Former members’: those that presumably are not any longer member but once were.

In addition, only those ‘current members’ will be listed in Infobox as “groups”, with extra caption: “Current members:”. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strength and doubts about its existence (as army)

[edit]

The strength of the FSA has never been clear since 2011 (as is stated presently in section Strength). A recent estimate, Dec 2015, has only been given by a (rather obscure) Turkish think tank: 35,000 fighters; therefore that number is listed in the Infobox on top of the article.
Several serious commentators (NBC, Fisk, Jarrah, IBT, Cockburn) however also have (recently, 2015) called in question the entire existence of a ‘Free Syrian Army’ (worthy of the name ‘army’). Their lines of reasoning are summarized in section Questions of existence, combativeness and structure. To present that balanced picture also in the Infobox, the Infobox contained, next to the (not very authoritative) number of ’35,000 fighters’, also the notion that, according to some, the FSA does not really exist (anymore) (as army).
That information however was deleted from Infobox on 10July,02:02, by Shawn.carrie, with motivation: ”bias”.
Exactly the same disqualification: “bias”, was given on 3July08:51 by a new and anonymous editor as motivation for deleting the entire section Questions of existence, combativeness and structure, which I’ve repaired on 6 July.
But neither that section ‘Questions’ destroyed 3July, nor that mentioning in Infobox deleted 10 July, I believe to be an example of bias: they are simply providing our readers with relevant information from relevant sources/commentators. Some serious war observers have doubts over questions like whether or not we should (still) consider FSA an existing army. Nobody has to believe or agree to such doubts—but it is our duty to profer them for interested readers.
The same goes for the mentioning in the lead section, calling attention to those commentators questioning FSA’s influence/existence/structuredness, distorted 27May23:41 by NullaTaciti without clear motivation and then wholly removed 10July02:17 by aforementioned Shawn.carrie with that same motivation: ”bias”. I do agree though, that that mentioning in the lead had gotten too long—after BoogaLouie,16June,00:30 had extended the existing concise remark about it in the lead by repeating at length what was already being said in section 8 (‘Questions…’), perhaps having gotten over-enthousiastic in passing on those doubts of commentators. But I surely think those doubts are important enough to be given short attention in the lead section, so I’ve restored a short remark about them in the lead. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This POV is shared by a very small minority and it is therefore an extreme view. It should be mentioned in the article, but not in the opening paragraph (and infobox). Some people think that the September 11 attacks were done by the CIA. However, this opinion is not mentioned in the opening paragraph of that article. The minority view is based on 4 sources. Two of them are the opinion of one person: journalist Robert Fisk. This journalist is well known for his biased views. As you can read in the Wikipedia article about him, he “is a pacifist and has never voted.”
The third source is the foreign minister of Russia, which is fighting alongside the Syrian government. The 4th source is the opinion of a journalist from International Business Times, which is not an authority on the subject. Moreover they had to admit that the article contained an enormous mistake. You can read at the bottom of the article: “Clarification: A quote in this story stated that the Levant Front will officially become a part of al-Nusra in three months. It is the other way around. Jarrah said al-Nusra members will become a part of the Levant Front.” So the article lacks credibility.
All in all, this opinion represents WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia policy says: “To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability.” Therefore this opinion should not be in the opening paragraph. Tradediatalk 02:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, WP:FRINGE appears rather the idea to present the "Free Syrian Army" as a coherent organization in 2016. I would not know of any serious source who suggests so. This has become an opportunistic fictional narrative by the Turkish government, and nothing else. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Groups

[edit]

That whole list of groups in the infobox is sourced to twitter, reddit and facebook. At best these are indirect links to primary sources. I suggest that anything that cannot be reliably sourced to secondary sources is removed or at least tagged with cn tags.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox as such is highly questionable. It makes the contrary-to-reality suggestion that the term "Free Syrian Army" would denote something of a coherent organizational structure, which it does not. In my opinion, the best solutoion would be to remove the infobox altogether and make a text section with a list of "Groups who used or use the FSA label". -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess. I strongly recommend to make it a history article

[edit]

This article is a mess with not much use for the reader. I strongly recommend to make it a history article, about what the FSA as an organization once was and did, categorically structured along a timeline. In the process, more than half of the text will disappear as of no encyclopedic value. And the infobox pretending that "FSA" would still be an existing organization should be deleted. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that at points it seems a mess. My explanation for that is, that certain people here are not working along (reliable) sources but are pushing their fantasies and hopes etc. into this article. When the article would be based on (verifiable) facts it would not be a mess – regardless how you’d (re-)organize it. See for example my edit of 29Sept2016 where a simply removed falseness: the alleged assertions (in lead section!) that I removed came not from the mentioned ref source. But on 3Oct, that bunch of fantasy was just as easily re-introduced, by some anonymous, with this (crazy) motivation: “You cannot simply delete any sentence in the introduction/summary as to what "FSA" is and denotes today(…)”
Until 19June2016, I’ve been rather active on this article trying to get (and keep) it better—I’m not suggesting though that it was perfect, then. Since then, I turned my attention to other things in Wiki, and the FSA article seems badly deteriorated. Mr 2A1ZA says here (9Sep): ‘make it a history article’, but it has (until June) always been trying to be a (correct) history article. Anyway, I wish him good luck with whatever he (or someone else) would want to do to improve the article. Just make everything correctly based on correct ref sources, that seems to me the main solution. But, even more important: severe action and punishments against people (like that anonymous 217.251.99.234 who corrupted the lead section on 3Oct2016,23:33) who are ruining Wikipedia with falseness. --Corriebertus (talk) 17:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Corriebertus, when I went over the structure of said article back in September to make it a presentation which actually is of value for the reader, I had to re-arrange an article which diverse editors (as far as I can see, you included) created and upheld as a piece to present "Free Syrian Army" as a fictional coherent organisation, which it probably never was, and if it ever was then definitely is not any more since 2013. I made it a history article by re-arranging the content according to an annual timeline. I would ask you not to corrupt the article by pretending against reality that "Free Syrian Army" were a coherent organisation. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete the list of groups using the FSA label

[edit]

Please do not delete the list of groups using the FSA label. At least one IP-editor persistently tries to do so, claiming that he would be "providing a link to the other pages reduces pages while providing the same informatron". However, that is not true. There is no other place on Wikipedia where groups of moost various affiliations and loyalties are listed according to their relationship to the "FSA" label. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. This list of groups is the most important ressource of this article. Me, like most users, click this article because of this list. Do not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.189.111.5 (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is making undesired edits--as 2A1ZA contends-- I'd recommend to name that editor, so he gets the chance to defend his edits, views, etc.; and others know who they have to look out for. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2A1ZA (and perhaps others?): stop corrupting this Wiki article

[edit]

Editor 2A1ZA on 20Sep2016,15:21, added the statement: “During the Turkish military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, FSA-labeled groups in the ranks of the Syrian Democratic Forces and FSA-labeled groups in the ranks of the ad hoc rebel coalition which Turkey had assembled for the operation fought each other”, without source given.
On 28Sep09:49, he expanded that assertion into: “(…) islamist FSA-labeled groups in the ranks of the ad hoc rebel coalition which Turkey had assembled for the operation fought each as well as fought against secular FSA-labeled groups in the ranks of the Syrian Democratic Forces” and ascribed that to source Al-Monitor 27 Sep 2016 (‘Turkey faces…’). But both assertions are not said in Al-Monitor, and no other source is given for them. I implore editor 2A1ZA to stop adding such unfounded assertions to this Wiki article, lest we’d have to resort to the Wikipedia community for harder measures against (such) vandalism/polluting/corrupting articles. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The factual statement is obviously true. If the reference I gave does not explicitly contain every part of that statement, my bad. I will see to put the issue back up when I stumble over, or have time to seek for, an explicit statement that the factions fighting each other there were both FSA-labeled among the myriad of articles on the event. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Corriebertus, what would you think about this sentence?
In the late 2016 Western al-Bab offensive, FSA labeled groups constituted the bulk of two different belligerent parties, fighting each other.
Cheers, 2A1ZA (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current intruduction is problematic as it appears to suggest that "FSA" would still denote a coherent organisation today

[edit]

I find the current intruduction problematic, as it appears to suggest that "FSA" would still denote a coherent organisation today, which it most obviously does not. The introduction definitely needs a sentence which in some form describes the use of the term "FSA" today, namely a promotional label that is opportunistically used or rejected by any Syrian Civil War group. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no FSA organisation or army. FSA is just a name for some terrorist groups to get media attention. DerElektriker (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Alfie Gandon (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref sources (general)

[edit]
  1. ^ https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CmJeg0BWAAQGDJd.jpg

Dec. 6th vandalisms

[edit]

Please help monitor the page as multiple IP vandals are synchronizing on twitter to vandalize the page. --Yug (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, vandalism is persisting with multiple IP involved. Help and semi-protection requested. --Yug (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Persistant. --Yug (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Use {{subst:uw-vandalism1}} to message the vandals. Found there : Wikipedia:Vandalism#For_beginners. --Yug (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Page now semi-protected.
History to review. I could not find where the first vandalism were made. --Yug (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


It's not just twitter, m8, us anti-terrorist folk congregate elsewhere. --14.203.98.54 (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alert

If something suspicious arise, ask a semi protection on WP:RfPP and warn using {{subst:uw-vandalism1}}. Wish you the best ! --Yug (talk) 23:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Free Syrian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Turkish Free Syrian Army' as a new article??

[edit]

I recommend the visitors of this talk page to quickly visit this page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkey Backed Free Syrian Army. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

article has bias,needs rewriting,like it denies FSA was an existing force.Alhanuty (talk) 03:46, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Free Syrian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Free Syrian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Free Syrian Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subject on all opponents and allies being removed

[edit]

I don’t think all the opponents and allies list of the rebels should be removed, the Wikipedia rules don’t state disputes are done in edit notes and none of those edit notes regarded the rules so I don’t know what to dispute on why these edits are being enforced, which themselves are against the rules as they didn’t reach consensus Bobisland (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff for reference. This does feel like something that needs consensus! BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main issue is that most of the entries are poorly sourced. For instance there is no source for "the Free Syrian Army" (not just "Syrian rebels" or certain FSA groups) being an opponent of China, Armenia, or even the United States. Ultimately due to the nature of the FSA as a non-unified organization (if an organization at all), it isn't possible to create an accurate list of its allies and opponents. This is a bit of a tangent but you of all people seem to be quite stringent when it comes to sourcing, as your edits at for example Free Idlib Army shows, so why not apply it here as well? Lightspecs (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to removing, just checking it has consensus. If restored, it would need good sourcing. BobFromBrockley (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Free_Syrian_Army&oldid=1204140692"