Jump to content

Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

Community sanctions on Syrian civil war articles

I would like to note that from now on, Syrian civil war topic articles are coming under community restrictions based on 1RR rule, as a result of motion from July 2013 [1] and a consequent WP:AN discussion over imposing sanctions [2] on articles of the Syrian civil war topic.Greyshark09 (talk) 06:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Please add this information to article

  • U.S. Tried to Derail UN Syria Probe; Dubiously Claimed Too Late for Evidence : “Despite the U.S. effort to portray the Syrian government policy as one of ‘delay,’ the formal request from the United Nations for access to the site did not go to the Syrian government until Angela Kane, UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, arrived in Damascus on Saturday, as Ban’s spokesman, Farhan Haq, conceded in a briefing in New York on Tuesday. Syrian Foreign Minister Moallem said in a press conference Tuesday that Syria had not been asked by the United Nations for access to the East Ghouta area until Kane presented it on Saturday. Syria agreed to provide access and to a ceasefire the following day."
Neither are reliable sources. Sopher99 (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
How so? The Institute for Public Accuracy doesn't even have a dog in this fight and is a reputable non-profit organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.78.51.137 (talk) 17:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

For Sopher, no source is reliable unless it is pro-Islamist. He is nearly a one man propaganda team. He works this article tirelessly trying to get his discourse out as the main narrative on this conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.188.161 (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The question is: are you using your phone as a phone? hm Coltsfan (talk) 23:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Use the award winning RT as a reliable source. She covers all the things US mainstream media censors out. LOL Blade-of-the-South (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
RT is utterly unreliable. It's a propaganda outlet for the Kremlin. I have my complaints with the mainstream media in the U.S., but if you have a cursory understanding of the American press, you'll know it's not editorially controlled by the government the way virtually all Russian media is. (I'm sure President Obama occasionally wishes otherwise...) -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Move request

The subject of this article is a proper noun and should be moved to Syrian Civil War.[3] I can not imagine this as controversial, yet it is move protected so I posted the request here. Am I missing something here?—John Cline (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Ariha

Ariha under the government control by sep/03/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syria-truth (talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Claims the US planned false flag chemical attacks in Syria

Hi, according to reporter Yahya Ababneh, who talked with rebels in Ghouta, chemical weapons was given to them by Saudi's guys. But rebels didn't know how to use them - so weapons exploaded by mistake. [4] date=29 August 2013

Hi, I'm not a regular in this article but I encountered this information that may be of current relevance - I didn't find discussion of it in a search of the archives and I'll leave it to regulars to decide whether to include.
U.S. 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad's regime' (Daily Mail, Jan. 29 2013)
US 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria, blame it on Assad govt': Report (ANI, Jan 30, 2013)
Interesting view on deletion of the original Daily Mail article --Dailycare (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You can't be serious... Is this a joke? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It was covered by several reliable sources (I remember the story), so I don't see the "joke". But I think it would be wrong to use this now, because we need new sources that relate the two issues. Otherwise, it's original synthesis. Another interesting issue is the fact that Turkish authorities caught rebels in Turkey with certain chemicals not so long ago. FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Which two issues do you mean? If you mean the alleged false flag attack and the civil war, the article discusses "government forces and rebels" which IMO clearly places it in the context of the Syrian civil war. --Dailycare (talk) 18:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The issues is this alleged plan, and putting it in relation to the recent alleged chemical attach. FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
If one reads the Daily Mail article it becomes clear that this is a rather ridiculous piece of junk: an email, allegedly released by a Malaysian hacker, (as a British security company has their mails servers in Malaysia - that's totally logical), this email between two private contractors says that "We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington." Which Qataris? Who are they? and even if they swear that it is approved by Washington... who in Washington? What person there? Well, nobody knows, nobody has an idea - but the Daily Mail concludes "that the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria". Really??? The White House? What person? Who? Ah, nobody has a clue and nobody knows... but that December 25th mail (Christmas Day!) is taken for truth, when in fact anyone could cook some BS like this up in his own free time. noclador (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah ok I see - but I wasn't thinking of placing it in the context of the recent alleged chemical attack, just including it in the article overall, the article does have material spanning a long timescale relating to the civil war and chemical weapons. --Dailycare (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is proof that this mail is a forgery: [5]. noclador (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

wow, thanks! --Dailycare (talk) 17:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I have seen the article. Reminds me of the Iraq WMD fraud that was used to justify an attack. I think in time US intel in his latest situation will likely be outed as fraud also. Lets wait and see. Certainly USA strikes now would be a direct violation of international law. http://rt.com/news/russia-us-syria-intelligence-236/
Since we are an encyclopedia and always have neutral POV (LOL) the others side story is of course key to impartiality and lack of bias in the article. So heres this. http://rt.com/news/syria-denies-us-intelligence-235/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Kosovo war, Bosnian war, Libyan civil war. And the two you'l love the most United_States_invasion_of_Panama , Russia–Georgia_war Sopher99 (talk) 03:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


  • If the information comes from RT, Press TV or SANA, and if it's against the opposition, then it's absolute truth. But if it comes from a western source, it's a lie, propaganda and bias. Right? Right? lol Coltsfan (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
RS that claim it's a false flag [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] USchick (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
The Euronews and Thehindu are only reporting that assad claims its a false flag. The Indepdentent is not saying its a false flag, rather just collecting any doubts intel has gave all in one piece. Indypendent? regardless that source too, is only reporting on the syrian government's accusation Sopher99 (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Reliable sources are reporting that this attack is being seriously considered as a false flag attack. USchick (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
No. Reliable sources are reporting that this attack is being seriously considered by the Syrian government as a false flag attack. Sopher99 (talk) 20:30, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Since when do US politicians like Rand Paul and Pat Buchanan work for the Syrian government? USchick (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Strong Bias in Article

Just read the 'chemical' section. Its non POV, biased and not encyclopedic. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Instead of making vague accusations, how about we break down the paragraph of concern and see if it really is so scary.


On 21 August, Syrian activists reported that Assad regime forces struck Jobar, Zamalka, 'Ain Tirma, and Hazzah in the Eastern Ghouta region with chemical weapons. At least 635 people were killed in a nerve gas attack. Unverified videos uploaded showed the victims, many of who were convulsing, as well as several dozen bodies lined up.[1] <the death toll definitely needs to be updated, other than that we simply give a who, what, where and when. The videos were also a highlight in the media that day.>

Experts in chemical weapons stated that the footage showed signs that a nerve agent may have been used.[2] <backed up by a BBC source, experts - who exist - saw videos - which exist - and concluded it was most likely nerve agents - which exist.>

Early sources reported a figure of 213 in a poisonous gas attack.[3] The SNC chief said that the overall death toll stood at an estimated 1300, as only a fraction of the bodies could be collected and many died within their own homes.[4] <death tolls - all deadly attacks have death tolls.>

The Syrian government initially prevented United Nations investigators from reaching the sites of the attacks,[5][6] despite their accommodations being only a few kilometers away.[7] <backed up by HRW and Reuters, Syrian government - initially - blocked access. Ghouta is only a few kilometers from where the UN inspectors were staying. Unless using the metric system instead of the imperial system counts as POV, I see nothing wrong here.>

On 25 August, the Syrian government agreed to allow UN investigators to visit the site of the attacks.[8][9]<The syrian government allows them in>

The UN inspectors arrived to the site of the attacks, despite being fired upon by an unknown party while underway. UN officials say that inspectors have gathered "valuable" evidence.[10] < no blame attributed to the attack on the vehicle, UN statement says valuable evidence collected. Not seeing a problem unless you really want to strech it by saying "valuable" is an inappropriate point of view>

On 26 August the inspectors reached some sites, but after an hour and a half, were ordered by the Syrian government to return due to 'safety concerns', and the inspectors could not reach the six main sites.[11] <the events that took place on 26 August, Guardian source>

<The paragraph is fine, just needs to be updated> Sopher99 (talk) 03:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The section looks fine to me. What's the problem? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Even I think it's fine and I am strongly against Islamist propaganda. However, we need to change the combatants box so that the Mujahideen section is changed to "foreign militants." Don't give one side the more honourable title "Mujahideen" and others the title "foreign militants." Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

No - because the foreign militants under the Syrian government are exclusively foreign, where as for the mujahideen only a small fraction are foreign. Sopher99 (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
What do you base the last assessment on? FunkMonk (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
yes Sopher ref that widely. You cant. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Im surprised no ones seen it. What is bias? When one side is represented and the other not, right. Its called balance when its done right. There are no relevant sections stating Syria's legit government position on various accusations, (refs available on RT). No Russian position re Rebels did it, (refs available on RT). No Russian position re lack of evidence, real evidence not trial by media (refs available on RT). And on and on. To get your head around the need for balance you may need to understand three things. 1/ evidence of sarin alone is not guilt for Syria. 2/ The rebels could easily have been supplied with sarin by their mid east backers. 3/ Who gains from this attack? Not Assad. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
That's because Sopher thinks only Western (and Gulf) media is neutral. FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes well its a common problem in many. IMHO Al Jazerra is dodgy, and RT is fine. The NYT is biased IMO, but smooth about it. Thats why a wide range of views is good. Syria is getting biased media coverage in the west. Why? Political reasons Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
But in the east, it's all fine and dandy! The media coverage in Russia is not bias at all, right? And how can RT be neutral if they are openly funded by the russian government? It's like I have said before! To you guys it's like "If the information comes from RT, Press TV or SANA, and if it's against the opposition, then it's absolute truth. But if it comes from a western source, it's a lie, propaganda and bias." C'om! Coltsfan (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
way too simplistic Coltsfan. BALANCE is required. RT and the like are required for balance. I know there are agendas all round but think on this. If that was a false flag the backers of those who ordered it are evil. If those are the backers of the rebels, the Wests people, us, have a real problem. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I've often pointed to the comically pronounced pro-rebel bias on this article. And the fact that Sopher99's efforts (i.e. numerous edit wars) are focused on keeping it as much in-line with islamist rebel propaganda as possible. Setting aside the fact that much of the world media sources not friendly to the Sunni insurgency are disregarded - even western media are being ignored when they have something to say that might reflect badly on the rebels. Just yesterday I heard on CNN that the insurgency is composed of separate movements, the largest of which is the Al-Nusra Front. Does the article reflect that? Or is it a poster for fairy-tale propaganda from the "Syrian National Coalition".. -- Director (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

"This article is pro rebels"! "Western media is bias"! "This article is propaganda"... Same old, same old. The pro Assad guys thinks this article is propaganda. The pro opposition guys thinks this article is also propaganda. Give me a break. Coltsfan (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't give a damn about Assad or (if you'll pardon) Syria in general. I care about our project and its reputation. If you think people voicing concerns of bias "cancel each other out" I hope you'll think again. -- Director (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't give a damn about both sides either. I look at this article and it's too big! There is a lot of crap here. But I don't think it's bias. And I don't think that it shows a western view of the conflict. And regarding the sources, RT is just as bad as Fox News, for instance. Coltsfan (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that should be in there for balance. 'Russia releases key findings on chemical attack near Aleppo indicating similarity with rebel-made weapons'. http://rt.com/news/chemical-aleppo-findings-russia-417/.

Heres a teaser from it. 'the shell used in the incident “does not belong to the standard ammunition of the Syrian army and was crudely according to type and parameters of the rocket-propelled unguided missiles manufactured in the north of Syria by the so-called Bashair al-Nasr brigade”;

Oh there will be war, certain powers want it bad, but Im not going to be a sap and not see the bias and wrongness beforehand which is also evident in this article. I live in the West, Im white, have 2 degrees, so what? Well when I see bias in Wikipedia thats all Im saying. I also have views on how democracy has been subverted, I like Snowdens stand. Again so what. Bias is bias and its dangerous. Its feeding an illegal US strike. It will lead to loss of life in Syria. Why should an encyclopedia support it? Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

"Bias is Bias and its dangerous. its feeding an illegal US strike" I think this sums up the hypocrisy of the talking points around here. Sopher99 (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not clear what you mean, explain in detail. As for your quote in italics: I dont know where you live but here in Australia on commercial and state sponsored news its trial by media and it is feeding public opinion toward bias. Iraq WMD are forgotton by some. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Sopher is not aware that a US strike would indeed be illegal in terms of international law. Such things are generally not given much attention, though. Many past and present US foreign entanglements are more-or-less illegal in that sense, so people got used to it decades ago. Sopher is basically saying that your (rather naïve) reference to international law indicates bias. To be sure, both Iraq and now Syria are essentially cases of naked aggression, legally speaking, and the media in the west are generally supportive thereof, no question. -- Director (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Therein lies the rub. That is why the USA never will sign up for the world court. Their leaders would be tried, no doubt about that. I believe many see where this will end, by and by. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Russia Today is not a reliable source for any claim that supports the Kremlin's view.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

But US media is a reliable source for claims that supports the US government's view? You really don't see the double standards here? Same with Gulf Arab media. FunkMonk (talk) 06:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The Funky Monks right. Its also what I said above. I have to say though that the push and bustle IMHO is from the West. An event happened. Children died. But there is something very wrong with the media coverage. Im suspicious of such things post 9/11, post Iraq, Afghanistan. I would not be surprised if it comes out one day the attack came from non Assad sources. The Al Q affiliated rebels in fact. There is enough coverage for this doubt to be included in the article. I'm suspicious also of some editors here too, because its really obviously biased. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

FT, you clearly misunderstand WP:NOTFORUM. Kindly refrain from messing with posts you personally disagree with and/or are annoyed by. Also please try to keep your language civil ("rambling"). -- Director (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree, FT uses WP:NOTFORUM incorrectly. The result of this is to shut down for some an uncomfortable, but legitimate debate. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Oh dear, that [12] is a clanger. Seriously though we need some neutral work in here like the banner at the top of this page urges Blade-of-the-South (talk) 08:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Most sources describe the conflict as gradually having turned sectarian. Whats wrong with mentioning that? Futuretrillionaire removed that. Pass a Method talk 03:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

This article is 1RR so i cant re-add it yet. Pass a Method talk 04:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: This page needs a picture th...

93.150.144.50 posted this comment on 28 June 2013 (view all feedback).

This page needs a picture that shows all of the relations between the factions that are involved

(like for example, there can be a green line between the "syrian government" and "Hezbollah" to show that they're allies).

It would also be better to see an example of the art produced by the war.


Thanks.

Any thoughts?

I think neither of these ideas belong on this page. A graphic for the relations of the Syrian government during the war, should be under "Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war" or " International reactions to the Syrian civil war", this page is crowded and overly lengthy already. Also, Wikipedia is not an art gallery. At most there should be one representative piece of art, if it becomes famous, noteworthy or significant, or affects the course of the war, otherwise no, I do not believe it belongs here. Ottawakismet (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Al-Nusra Front or Jabhat al-Nusra?

The article should be consistent in which version of the group's name to use. Which one do we use? Persnonally, I prefer Al-Nusra Front because that's the name of the Wikipedia article for it.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we call it by its english name - we do so for the "national defense force" and Islamic state in Iraq and Syria. Sopher99 (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

English language media is using Al-Nusra Front. USchick (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Agree with USchick Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight to Israel content in Interntaional Reaction/Humanitarian Aid section

First and foremost, this is not an attack on Israel or POV pushing. I just noticed in reading through this setcion that the first paragraph which details almost all other humanitarian aid, involving thousands, is a small and more concise read than the seemingly overinflated paragraph that follows. The second paragraph seems to have a much greater level of detail on the Israeli effort than is warranted by the scope of the article. It's increidbly laudable that Israel is providing aid, I don't mean to take anything away from them or to downplay their effort. I just think we go into too much detail in comparison to the previous paragrah. If we can sum up all US and other sources of aid, which affect thousands or millions, in one paragraph, do we really need to spend a whole paragraph talking about how Israel provided aid to 100? It seems undue weight. Israel's effort is certianly not negligible, but it's certainly not of the same scope as everything else put together. I would recommend shortening that paragraph to one sentence, something like "Israel has provided medical aid to 100 people through special entry permits for critically wounded Syrians." Everything else is pretty much extraneous detail. If equal detail was put into USAID efforts, it would be a whole article. Much love for Israel, but let's keep it short and sweet?204.65.34.29 (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. Israel probably won't even show up on the first ten pages of google when you look up "Syria humanitarian aid" on google. Sopher99 (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and edit it; if reverted, please bring to Talk.204.65.34.204 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Just to notify you - i created Humanitarian aid during the Syrian civil war, so the info could be transferred there.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sectarianism in the lede

I don't want to go into edit war again with Sopher "Blame Assad!" 99, so I'm just pointing this out. Right in the lede we have a statement: "The conflict gradually took a more sectarian nature between Sunnis and Shia Alawites when the Syrian government began establishing Alawite militias to substitute defected soldiers."

This, of course, is just a part of the truth. Influx of Sunni extremists, funding of Sunni groups by Gulf states, spillover of sectarian conflict in Iraq and calling for jihad against Shi'a are the other aspects, not mentioned there.

Can someone edit that in some neutral way? Thanks. --Emesik (talk) 23:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Your quite correct Emesik that lede is childish in its understatement of the facts. The problem is its such a complicated international geo political mess in Syria, Wiki editors would be flat out keeping up and even more flat out doing non POV balanced and neutral with reliable refs. Thats why talk pages exist, to help this process. Well thats the idea, lol. I didnt see your edit war, but have been in two that rivaled the conflict in Syria. So Im not surprised. Its not helpful having people come in and shut off threads or post replies that are reactions, but thats usually part of the process, then it settles down. Just keep plugging away. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any source\info in the article(which the lead reflects) showing that all the things you mentioned resulted in the sectarian nature of the conflict and not the other way around? --PLNR (talk) 13:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Let's start with the two sources already cited there ([13], [14])
First of all, neither of them supports the statement that "Syrian government began establishing Alawite militias to substitute defected soldiers". Yes, they say about militias, yet there is no single use of word "defected".
Second, they do not point out the establishment of Alawite militias as the starting point of sectarian conflict. The root is much deeper, in decades of Assad's minority rule and moving Sunnis away from power.
Third, one of the sources says: "Starting as an uprising that transcended sect, the Syrian conflict has taken on an increasingly sectarian hue thanks to the Sunni Gulf states’ support for the rebels and to the backing of Bashar Assad’s regime by Iran’s Shia leadership and—more relevant to Lebanon—by Hizbullah." — which is pretty consistent with the version I had introduced before Sopher99 reverted it.
Fourth, the UN source cited here says it straight out: “The risk of the Syrian conflict devolving from peaceful protests seeking political reform to a confrontation between ethnic and religious groups has been ever present,” the Commission stated. “As battles between Government forces and anti-Government armed groups approach the end of their second year, the conflict has become overtly sectarian in nature.”[12]
What I'm saying here is that the shift to sectarian conflict was gradual and there is no single point in time to name as a border between non-sectarian and sectarian war.--Emesik (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Peace Conference

I read and hear things about a projected peace conference in Geneva. Is anyone able to add a section on initiatives of that kind? --Corbertholt (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

does it really matter.it wont achieve anything.70.28.7.229 (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

To mr 70.28.7.229: we are an encyclopedia: we are describing the world. That's all we want to achieve. Now, there is talk of some peace conference; who knows more about it? --Corbertholt (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
It is Geneva II Middle East peace conference. Indeed we may add "peace attempts" section to describe it aling with previous proposals and the peace missions of Kofi Annan and Lakhdar Brahimi.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

article statement

However, experts say that hard-line Islamists make up only 8,000 of the 140,000-strong rebel force.

This statement is highly misleading.If not simply wrong.

First of all, the source article, which is the basis for this statement, says that 140,000 opposition fighters are FSA fighters.and that 8000 are islamists.

but the FSA itself is composed of Islamists (3rd paragraph).

second of all, just because one is not a hardline islamist, does not mean one is secular.one could believe in some form of Islamic democracy.

In short, it is a very misleading statement, and the extent to which the opposition is secular is at best unclear.99.254.53.216 (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree, sloppy work originally. Try this for search ideas. One US intelligence estimate found as many as a quarter of the 300 different rebel groups in Syria may be fighting under the banner of al-Qaeda, according toRep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. http://news.antiwar.com/2012/09/08/jihadists-striving-for-autocratic-theocracy-make-up-syrian-rebels/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Its not misleading. Hardline islamists are extremists. Only 8k are extremist.

Anti-war.com? Really? the pov is even in the name of this one. Sopher99 (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99 really. Did anyone at all suggest Anti-war.com as a reference? No. Instead I said this, 'Try this for search ideas'..i.e. this info, 'Mike Rogers (R-MI), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee'. Sopher can you try to follow the lines of reasoning because when you dont its disruptive. Thankyou. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I think a statement like that is based on very little, "Experts" doesnt mean any kind of authentication imho. Is this conclustion based on a survey of attitudes of rebel fighters? LOL Neither the Syrian government nor the rebels have a definite list of who is fighting and who isnt. Ottawakismet (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Ottawakismet I think you are correct no one knows how strong in number the hardline Islamists are. Its messy and the article could show that or say that rather than put up figures that are flawed Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to bet it's a majority.99.254.53.216 (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

  • What exactly does the term "Hardline islamist" mean and how is it defined? Jahbat al Nusra is presumably counted, so that is 5000+, but what about the Syrian Islamic Front and the SILF, there are tens of thousands in these umbrella groups, are they hardline Islamists or just ordinary garden variety Islamists. A more useful terminology would be Islamist > Salafist > Jihadist (SILF > SIF > Jahbat al-Nusra & ISIS) Gazkthul (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
An islamist is someone who wishes to impose islam on society.This is not a moderate view.Having said that you are right, this is probably the least extreme view among the rebels.Really, I think the answer is obvious, and we are just arguing semantics99.254.53.216 (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
unfortunately this article does nothing except further muddy the waters.read the 5th paragraph, where it claims islamist jihadists are not extremists.so then what exactly qualifies as an extremist?.99.254.53.216 (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Lede: Designation of Jabhat al-Nusra as terrorist group by US

Do we really need to have that info in the lede? I'd say it's WP:UNDUE. US is just another country, not even involved directly in the conflict. --Emesik (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Why Hezbollah is called Foreign Militants in InfoBox but Mujahideen aren't called Foreign Militants?

Why Hezbollah is called Foreign Militants in InfoBox but Mujahideen aren't called Foreign Militants?? even Anti-Assad new channel CNN reported that, Mujahideen are not Syrians they are Jihadist from different countries?? SpidErxD (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Because Hezbollah and such are exclusively foreign. SIF and Nusra simply contain foreigners, but most aren't. Sopher99 (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Most of the Jihadist who are supporting FSA aren't Syrians but you are hiding them. This article is biased because all the news is cited from UK,US,Qatar,Israel news channels who are against Syrian Regime. I didn't see any citation of Russia,Iran,China news channels. SpidErxD (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree. USchick (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
For Russia it would have to be a reliable source like Interfax or Moscow times. As for Iran and China, I do not know of any independent/free reliable media there. Sopher99 (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll tell you guys what - I'l replace all Al jazeera, Al arabiya, and if possible - all US media sources. Sopher99 (talk) 00:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with SpidErxD . I would also like to ask you User:Sopher99 if you have any interest concerns, paid or unpaid that make you a non neutral editor. Are you too involved to be impartial? I ask this based on your edit history alone. And User:Sopher99 other people will be putting in other refs not from UK,US,Qatar,Israel. You need to understand that. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

it's not the sources that make this article biased, but the way information is presented. For example, in the lede of an article about a Civil war, what could possibly be a good reason to include a random opinion from a government halfway around the world? "The United States has designated the pro-Assad Shabiha militia and the al-Nusra Front as terrorist groups with links to al Qaeda in Iraq" How is this relevant in a civil war? USchick (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Ask blade of south that. He put Al nusra and its alqaeda links in that paragraph. I added the shabiha part because it wouldn't be fair unless we list both organizations the US deems terrorists. If blade of south removes the Al nusra and alqaeda, I will remove the shabiha thing. That way both of us self reverts instead of reverting each-other. Sopher99 (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
That sounds like a good start. USchick (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
OK agreed lets remove it, I'll do it now. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

White House says it has no “irrefutable” evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad was behind the August gas attack

Snatch. 'The Obama administration has also referred to its satellite and signals intelligence, as well as military communications, as proof that the regime was preparing to use poisonous gas just days before the alleged attack took place. Yet the administration has refused to let the public see the evidence allegedly connecting Assad to the crime - even though ample amounts of satellite imagery was released earlier by the US in order to demonstrate the consequences of the attacks'. http://rt.com/usa/white-house-syria-evidence-586/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Russia Today is not a reliable source listed by wikipedia, as it is operated by the russian government. Jacob102699 (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

RT (TV network) is an Autonomous non-profit organization (ANO) [15] governed by the Federal Agency on Press and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation. Autonomous is independent. Where is it listed on Wikipedia as unreliable? USchick (talk) 22:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course RT is reliable. News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. The NYT has disputed reliability when its opinions are used as facts, (see Edward Snowdon talk archives). Everything is disputed these days but facts are facts. This from Wikipedias protocols allows use of RT for facts. 'News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors'). I have to say that genuine query of sources is healthy. Political motives driving keeping out reliable sources in here are not. Its puerile and repugnant. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting on an answer about what makes RT (TV network) unreliable. User:Jacob102699 would you like to clarify? Or anyone else? USchick (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Does it ever critisize the Kremlin.70.28.7.229 (talk) 10:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/arts/television/18heym.html?_r=0

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/controversial-propaganda-using-stalin-to-boost-russia-abroad-a-518259.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/from-russia-with-news-1869324.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/18/russia-today-propaganda-ad-blitz

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/putin-fights-war-of-images-and-propaganda-with-russia-today-channel-a-916162.html

http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2010/07/russia_today_goes_mad

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/russian-backed-propaganda-networks-claim-obama-is-a-cia-agent/

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/7_clips_larry_king_should_have_watched_before_joining_russia_today

Sopher99 (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

See WP:NEWSORG. Also see RT (TV network) for information on RT's alleged bias and propaganda. Specifically, one thing that caught my eye was the calling the Boston Marathon bombings a gov conspiracy. If that is not propaganda idk what is. On WP:Newsources/Europe RT is not listed as one of the several reliable sources based out of Russia. Lastly, I recall RT being decided not reliable several times on this talk page in the last 2 and a half years. Jacob102699 (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Re 'Lastly, I recall RT being decided not reliable several times on this talk page in the last 2 and a half years' Is that a joke, like that counts. Lol. A few of you get together and pow. Srsly.
John Feffer, codirector of Foreign Policy in Focus says he appears on RT as well as the U.S.-funded Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, commenting "You’re going to find blind spots in the coverage for any news organization."[97] American journalist Glenn Greenwald listed the corporate and government owners of prominent western media like NBC, BBC, Voice of America, Wall Street Journal, Fox News, Politico and The Washington Post and asked why it was "an intrinsic violation of journalistic integrity to work for a media outlet owned by the Russian government." He also wrote that the real cause of American media hostility toward RT is that "the reporting it does reflects poorly on the U.S. Government, the ultimate sin in the eyes of our 'adversarial' press corps."[52] https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/RT_%28TV_network%29#Objectivity_and_bias Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
greenwald is a left wing hack.108.175.224.13 (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
POV unless ref shown. Lol srsly agent do better Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

1949 coup and context of modern Syrian history

I see that earlier talk page consensus favored including a brief description of the 1949 CIA-backed coup in the background section of this article. I can't find a record in the talk archives of a later consensus to remove the material, and so I've restored it, in abridged form. Two sentences, giving background on the early struggles between democracy and dictatorship in Syria, are certainly useful to readers hoping to place the civil war in context. -Darouet (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

ali habub mahmmud

he has no defect,they were nopthing more but rebel propaganda!!!!!deleted it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.151.241.195 (talk) 11:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

WP:SNOW. The consensus against the move request.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Syrian civil war → Syrian Arab Spring war – Protesters do not generally turn into an army without being one to begin with. There is no reason to suppose the demonstrators were not invaders, going from one country to the next to fight, like Alexander or like crusaders. The demonstrators could conceivably be the 250,000 lift in Iraq by U.S. President George H.W. Bush. Thus “civil war” is probably not what is going on there. 69.3.115.148 (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


Yes its a dirty corrupt war and no name I suspect will do it justice. Of course its way beyound a civil war. Its a geopolitical power play. I like 'The Syrian Conflict' for a name, as it leaves room for the host of back room, shadowy nasty interfering players as well. But I think we are stuck with this name because of the pernicious nomenclature in mainstream media and those who oppose any changes based on common sense. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that it actually is a civil war. I mean the definition of civil war is a war in which a country is fighting itself. Kydon Shadow (talk) 17:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


The only media channel that doesn't call this conflict a civil war is SANA and Press TV. All the others, including RT, calls it a civil war. The UN calls it like this as well, the Red Cross, etc. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current name. Coltsfan (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

mujahideen

Is this article implying the rebel groups under mujahideen are jihadist or islamist, while the rest are not.70.28.7.229 (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Mujahideen Sopher99 (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Not really. It refers to the number of foreign islamists. There are other "indigenous" islamist groups mentioned in the infobox. However, it is good that you started as a topic, because the mujahideen number is slightly troublesome. The source on which the number of 10,000 is based (an article from the Times whose full access is restricted) mentions that "as many as 10,000 foreigners fighting to overthrow President Assad". However, because it is restricted it is unclear to what extent the number of 10,000 overlaps with the estimates for other groups in the infobox (e.g. al-Nusra). I hope somebody who does have access to the full article can answer if these matters are resolved in the rest of the article. Otherwise I will put an asterix at the mujahideen estimate with the remark "Number possibly overlaps with estimates for other groups." --Tomvasseur (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Putins message for Americans re Syria

This is a key statement, and should it be ignored the UN's role is over, compromised. Snatch: 'It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”'.

continuing. 'My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal'. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-11/vladimir-putin-addresses-america-nyt-op-ed-calls-caution-syria. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It probably makes sense to link the actual op ed rather than a repost by Tyler Durden. What specific improvements to this article do you propose? VQuakr (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Linking sounds reasonable. Let me think on what the improvements are. Heres a NYTs link. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1& Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Words are wind. Coltsfan (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

So Coltsfan 'words are wind!! heres me thinking words were sound waves with resonance in frequencies our civilisation uses for communication. Have you found an effective way to communicate without words which means you are on a vow of silence I presume, perhaps using note paper and the PC exclusively. Do tell. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Words are wind unless you have nuclear weapons to back them up. The US is moving undocumented nuclear warheads, and when they "accidentally" go off in Syria, I wonder who will get blamed, Iran or Al-Qaeda? [16] USchick (talk) 02:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
USChick, keep the noise to a minimum please. The serious editors are trying to develop difficult articles, and you are not helping by bringing up BS articles from BS sources that are never, ever going to be used. VQuakr (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll remind you about this conversation when it hits the fan, ok? Cheers! USchick (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure. Of course Wikipedia will probably be down what with the destruction of all infrastructure and everything, but we can sit around the campfire and share slug kabobs while you remind me of how right you were. VQuakr (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Nasty development. Ref? BTW VQuakr Improvements to help reduce the POV noted in the article by several editors could include phrases along the lines of these from the links above. Russia believes, a US strike

  1. would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism.
  2. will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders.
  3. undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa.
  4. (would be) ineffective and pointless.

and a strike would be counter to.

  1. improve(ing) the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen(ing) mutual trust. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Isn't this getting a bit off topic? I suggest a spin off article about anything that Russia and US may or may not believe. USchick (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Obviously your numbered list here is a draft, but I think two or three sentences, clearly attributed to Putin, would be an excellent addition to the International reaction section. The last paragraph there is outdated, and Putin's op ed is effectively an update (albeit through unconventional channels). VQuakr (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Yup draft, two or three sentences would be good. I dont care who puts it in btw. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Updated draft replacing the last paragraph of the section is in the article. Feel free to revise. VQuakr (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
OK did so needs an upgrade Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Turkey?

I think this edit should be reverted because there's no evidence that Turkey has offered lethal suport. Only evidence they offered land for its supply. Otherwise we will have to add Jordana nd a host of other countries to the list as well. Pass a Method talk 10:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure why Turkey is there either.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is (much) too long; let’s put § 2 (Events) in a sub-article

A large majority of us (active Wikipedia-editors) will probably agree that this article ‘Syrian civil war’ is (much) too long. Downloading the article, or any operation on it, usually takes undesirably and unnecessary long times. I therefore fully support the message that was put on top of the article on 4 September 2013, saying: “This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and/or condensing it.” (For reasons I don’t understand, someone on 5 September shortened that message to: “This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably.”) I think all of us (active Wikipedians) who are interested in this article should make an effort to shorten it, by condensing one or several of its longer sections, by making more or better use of sub-articles.

This, I suppose, can or should even be done drasticly. Today, the article had length 272,036 bytes which at my homecomputer equals 42 full screens; perhaps we should strive towards a length of approximately 15 or 10 of such fullscreens (= 97,000 to 65,000 bytes), or even less, to make it comfortably manageable on most computers. But even without agreeing on some final goal, we perhaps can agree on a need for vigorously cutting back.

One first, robust step reducing the length of the article at once with 30% would be moving the entire section 2 (‘Uprising and civil war’, relating mostly chronological the events of the uprising and the civil war up till now) to a sub-article, called: ‘Events in the Syrian uprising and civil war’. The summary in our main article ‘Syrian civil war’ in section 2, apart from directing towards ‘Main article: Events in the Syrian uprising and civil war’, might at first run somewhat like: “A short summary of the uprising and war up until now can be found in the lead section of this article Syrian civil war”. Consecutively, that new sub-article ‘Events in…’ can probably be improved, perhaps issuing into a (preliminary) lead section in that sub-article of say 300 words; leading up again to an improved summary of say approximately 100 words in section 2 of the main article (‘Syrian civil war#Events’). Corriebertus (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

97k bytes is extraordinarily short for an article with this magnitude of info. We should cut it back down to the 200k limit instead. Sopher99 (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

See the following section for a possible sub article split: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_29#Background_article.3F FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The move of FutureTrillionaire on the article, 16 Sept 19:03, I do not understand. A tag was put on top of the article, by FutureTrillionaire, 4 Sep 00:35, saying the article was too long. So I made yesterday the suggestion (see above), in this discussion section, te shorten it by using a sub-article 'Events'. Nobody made an objection as far as I could see; so I split off that sub-article; and now it is reverted by FTrill. Please, can you explain? The info is not lost, it's only placed in a sub-article, just for practical reasons, just doing what the tag asked since 4 Sept. Have you changed your mind, are you now against sub-articles? You say in your edit summary: “The main point of a war article is to present the events in the war” . I would answer: Wikipedia is still presenting all those events, but after one click extra, in a sub-article; section 2 (‘Events’, or any name you would prefer) is by far the longest section, therefore the best option to (quickly) shorten the article; all sections in the article are very important, I can’t see why one section could never be condensed by using a sub-article; I consider the extreme length of this article to be an extremely important problem, which needs really quick mending, that is to say really quick shortening. We are not making Wikipedia for ourselves, but for the thousands (millions?) of people around the world who easily and quickly want to read about this war. Therefore, articles must be short, making clever use of sub-articles, sub-sub-articles, and so forth. With all due respect, FutureTrillionaire himself/herself has since 4 Sep not (as far as I can see) made any effort on shortening the article (with sub-articles) – nor has anyone else, for that matter. So I ask once again: is the length of the article a problem – which I really believe – or is it not? If it is not, remove that tag. Corriebertus (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article is too long and that the Events section is perhaps the major thing which makes it too long. It provides quite excessive blow-by-blow description of events in the war; what is needed is relatively brief summary of major events and of the key influences, turning points, ebb-and-flow of power etc. I do find that making subarticles helps with turning such excessive description into something briefer and more helpful without loss of information, because you end up making a lead section for the new subarticle that often works pretty well as a summary for use in the main article. My only concern in this instance is that we also have Timeline articles (day-by-day detail) and key event articles (eg Al-Qusayr offensive) and there is a risk of excessive duplication. But anyway, an Events article with a brief summary here is probably the best way to handle this. Podiaebba (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Podiaebba, thanks for discussing. I understand, you would appreciate a subarticle ‘Events’ (‘perhaps the major thing which makes the article too long’) for several reasons, one of them is, such a subarticle would contain and provide a brief, summarized description in the lead section. That, however, is only true after someone has endeavoured to write such summary. (It would seem a rather difficult job, I believe.) I invite and encourage everyone to write such a summary. However, I believe we don’t have to wait with putting section 2 in a subarticle until such short summary is achieved and written. As long as it is not written, we can direct the reader to the lead section of Syrian civil war for some short summary. You may consider that not ideal, and I would agree; but on the other hand it is no deterioration from the present situation we have now. I believe, and repeat to say, that shortening the article now, immediately (= really rather soon), is desirable and required for technical reasons: long articles pose (many?) readers for (unnecessary, avoidable) techical problems. These problems are discussed for example in: Wikipedia:Article size lead section, and section Wikipedia:Article size#Technical issues, and in Wikipedia:Splitting#Size split.
By the way: I’m surprised and disappointed that so few Wikipedians join in this discussion. Does no one then agree with the ‘too long’-tag above the artcile? Does no one see, we pose readers for (unneeded) (technical) problems with this extreme long page (= article)? Corriebertus (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, you should check the article's page history - on 17 Sep it was dramatically shortened. Some stuff was moved to Fighting during the Syrian civil war; this page was then merged into Timeline of the Syrian civil war. A lot of other stuff was "trimmed". This is a lot of changes and whilst the general thrust of it makes sense, someone more familiar with the material should really have a closer look. Podiaebba (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for bringing this to my attention. I had indeed not looked at that page history. I agree, it is shortened dramaticly. At this moment I have not the time to look it over in detail, so I can't yet give an opinion about the qualitiy of those changes since 17 Sep. Bye, --Corriebertus (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Valgria

Valgria was a small town, recently destroyed by a misdirected mortar strike. Around 450 of the 500-550 inhabitants are now deceased, many of which were women and children.

Kydon Shadow (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Any source? Justicejayant (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
BTW Hi Sopher99, and all others, how are you doing? Do anyone even remember me? :P I wanted to say you all managed this page really well, keep it up. Justicejayant (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Arabic doesn't even have the "v" and "g" sounds. Moreover, the supposed "author" doesn't seem to exist, and "monitors" and "inspectors" are both misspelled. Either this is all sourced to a shitty WP:SPS with no online presence written by a no-name author with a "Google Translate"-level command of Arabic and grade-school command of English, or an outright WP:HOAX. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Use of the "Foreign Involvement" section

While obviously foreign involvement is very important in this conflict this section doesn't do well for the article. Besides that it lacks any references it doesn't offer information distinguitive enough for a separate section. I suggest looking at what parts from "Foreign Involvement" aren't reiterations of what has been written elsewhere & merge the rest either with "International reaction" or "Non-state parties in the conflict". I also suggest renaming "International Reaction" "Reaction from the international community", because then it is more clearly separated from the foreign non-state parties. --Tomvasseur (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Emirati press reporting KNC has joined SNC

Apparently the Kurdish National Council agreed to join forces with the Syrian National Council after the latter agreed to rename the Syrian Arab Republic by dropping the "Arab" part. As yet unclear whether this has actually changed things on the ground. Figured I'd leave it here and see what involved editors think should be done: [17] -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Purely political, won't have any effect on the ground. The KNC is just as weak and divided as SNC, merging the two will only compound that. The KNC had to fight tooth and nail to even get "Arab" dropped from the name, and had to set aside many of their demands for human rights and recognition in exchange for a vague "recognition of nationhood" due to the virulent Arab chauvinism that the SNC carries over from the Ba'ath. SMC chief Salim Idriss even came out with a statement on the heels of this denouncing "Kurdish separatism" as a threat to the "Arab lands" of the "Syrian Arab Republic"—the KNC is still part of the DBK (Supreme Kurdish Council) together with the PYD, which is currently spearheading an autonomisation project in the liberated Kurdish areas.
KNC parties have virtually no armed presence on the ground. Part of this is due to the fact that most of the constituent parties are extremely small and can't muster up sufficient manpower to gain votes, let alone take up arms. Part of it is due to the fact that the PYD keeps a tight lid on unapproved militias, at once avoiding weakening Kurdish military strength (cf. "FSA") and monopolising military force to its political advantage. A few PUK-aligned parties do have small armed units, but these are fully incorporated into the YPG (which is de facto controlled by the PYD).
As to what should be done: nothing in the infobox, for sure. The infobox is for military purposes, and this isn't going to do jack shit in terms of that. Maybe a brief note in the body, but this shouldn't be overblown.
I've also changed this header to a more accurate title. "Kurds" have been in the SNC for a while now (very few of them, though, only fringe groups like Mustaqbal), and "Kurds" have not defected to the SNC en masse. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

"its Shia militia allies"

Why was this reverted? How is "pro-government militias" a more inclusive and better term? Alawism is an off shoot of Shia Islam. The word Shia is commonly used to refer to followers of the Twelver branch, not offshoots of the denomination. Many don't even consider Alawites to be Muslims. Also, many militiamen are Christian, which clearly don't fit in the " Shia militia allies" category.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 07:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, Alawite translates as "one who follows Ali". This is clearly in line with core Shia doctrine which revolves around Ali, never midn the fact they follow Shia hadiths. Also, There are other groups which are non-Alawite Shias, including Twelver and Zaydi. Alawited can be called both a hyponym and a synonym of Shia. There are a dozen branches within Shia Islam. It doesn't make one less Shia than the other because it is smaller. As for Christian militias, i agree there are, but that would fall under WP:UNDUE weight. As for whether Alawites are Muslim, anyone who follows the Quran and hadith is cleary a Muslim to me. Pass a Method talk 07:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Re, 'anyone who follows the Quran and hadith is cleary a Muslim to me', sounds reasonable Blade-of-the-South (talk) 07:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Mainstream Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, regarded them (Alawites) as ghulta, “exaggerators.” --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Two problems. Firstly, thats a blog, which is usually regarded os lower quality. Secondly, usage of words such as "mainstream" usually indicates some level of impartiality, and is unacceptable. Its the equivalent of calling Catholics "heretics". Furthermore, i could easily find sources denouncing Twelvers as non-mainstream, and could do the same for just about any other Islamic sect. Also, the constitution of Syria says the president MUST be Muslim. How Did an Alawite become president if he's non-Muslim? And why are there videos online showing Alawites praying just like Shias do mosques? Pass a Method talk 16:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Please revise your word choice: [18]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Some extreme Sunnis don't eve consider Shias Muslims, but these same Sunnis have no problem with labelling Alawites as Shias. So it is more complicated than your average westerners gather from their media, which is full of errors. Until a few years ago, few of these westerners had even heard of Alawites before. And now they act as if they're experts on the matter. Quite funny, actually. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Calm down and clam up
at least coming to a subject without a preset mindset might make them westerlings a bit objective - like you don't even think Alawites and the regime kill people for sectarian reasons - don't ever 'kill Sunnis because they are Sunnis' - but are you right? [19] Sayerslle (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The regime does not kill anyone for not being Alawite, but for being connected to Salafists. On the other hand, the Salafists kill people for simply not being Sunni. This should be obvious by now. Ignorance of history and culture does not make one objective, just ignorant. As for individual massacres, no comment, there is too much fuzziness about their circumstances. FunkMonk (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
'As for individual massacres, no comment, there is too much fuzziness about their circumstances' - you could be a spokesman , that's excellent. Sayerslle (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Rather that than being a useful idiot for a cause that doesn't concern me/I don't understand. Disclaimer: that isn't necessarily directed at anyone here. Hell, it could be McCain. And since when was being sceptical towards wartime propaganda a bad thing? Remember Iraq one and two? Or "gay Girl in Damascus" and Zeinab al-Hosni for that matter? FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Iraq war 1 was propaganda? Thats a new one. Its very ironic when such a shia enthusiast is calling iraq war 2 propaganda when Iran applauded and encouraged the invasion of Iraq, and is STILL happy with the results. Gay girl from Damascus? Thats so 2011 man. There wasn't even a single rebel in Syria when that happened.
You have to go back to a source two years ago to find a lying incident. I only have to look back two days. http://altwire.utne.com/rt_story/occupy_new/syria-rebel-chemicals-mystery-deepens-as/377555553839746a707765526556654955484f6569673d3d Sopher99 (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Lol at the pathetic smear. "Shia enthusiast"? What does that even mean? I guess every secular Socialist Arab is a "Shia enthusiast" then. We can't all be American Twitter-white knights, I'm afraid. Seems you forgot the Kuwaiti incubator lie during Iraq war 1 (the Kuwaiti regime is Sunni, if you didn't know). And there were armed Salafists in Syria waiting for the "uprising" long before 2011. FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, your right. Theres nothing to be enthusiastic about the current shia identity right now when its dominated by idiots like nasrallah and khamanei. And yes salifists were waiting for an uprising long before 2011. They waited all the way up to 1982. Sopher99 (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Heheh, Nasrallah is "an idiot", but I guess someone like Idriss or Riad al-Assad is a "genius"? Or what are you trying to say? You think anyone here cares what you personally think about anything? FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Genius comes from the word genuine. Idiots are not genuine, they are many a times commonplace. You could be smart but not genuinely smart. Idriss is good in that regard, riad assad hasn't shown anything in particular other than determination and enthusiasm. Sopher99 (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
So if you compare their track records with that of Nasrallah, you maintain that he is an idiot in comparison? That's pretty amazing. Militarily, Hezbollah is leagues ahead of any other Arab army or militia. This is common knowledge, not propaganda. Idriss and his ilk are mere amateurs (just like the regular Syrian Army that spawned them), long sidelined by al-Qaeda, but they're so weak they have to suck it up. And even the latter only has numbers going for them, not quality. They are good at clinging on to vast, useless deserts so that the Washington Post has a large area it can attribute to the FSA on their little coloured maps, I'll give them that. FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The biggest idiot here is obviously the Lebanese government. After the 2006 fiasco, you'd think they would stop harboring Shia terrorists. The longer Hezbollah stays, the more likely Lebanon is going to get bombed back to the stone age.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
See that's exactly the kind of simplistic drivel that gets the world nowhere. Lebanon "harbours" (as if they have a choice) both Shia and Sunni militants. But only the former are deemed terrorists because they're a threat to Israel and US/Gulf interests. Yet only the latter regularly kills non-combatants from those countries. FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Massive changes by User:FutureTrillionaire

I strongly oppose the recent massive changes and selective removal of contents by User:FutureTrillionaire, and replacing them with POVed contents (e.g. "The Syrian government has been accused of conducting several chemical attacks, the most serious of them being the 2013 Ghouta attacks", as if only the Syrian govt has been accused of the attack, and only the government has been accused of chemical attacks). Since this is a sensitive article, I believe such changes are unacceptable without prior discussion. --Z 11:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

All major, controversial revisions should be discussed before being implemented, especially if they add POV material. If his revision is too biased, revert him. FunkMonk (talk) 11:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Nobody is perfect, neither mr/mrs FutureTrillionaire (FT), but let us assume good faith in his highly needed, and welcomed, efforts to shorten the article (see also Talk:Syrian civil war#The article is (much) too long; let’s put § 2 (Events) in a sub-article, 15-19 Sept). The need of drastic shortening of the article was undisputed since 4 September. Possibly FT has summarized some sections; possibly someone is not satisfied with some summaries; so let him improve such summaries, not accuse FT of deliberately biasing the article. Corriebertus (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Deleted image

What happened to the War in Syria.jpg image? The one that contains 8 different images which was used as a cover image by many of the articles in various languages. Thisissparta12345 (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight to chemical weapons use

The last sentence of the introduction, and a large part of the body, emphasize chemical weapons use. This is a minor part of a much larger conflict and the overemphasis on it in this article is derived from US media and State Department rhetoric rather than balanced reporting of the conflict. At minimum the last sentence of the introductory paragraph should point out that over 40% [20] of the FSA's fighting force is Al Qaeda terrorists.Mustang19 (talk) 22:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

A really telling comment - but is no one interested in debating it?78.147.84.221 (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

G20: Rebels did Gas attack statement

Putin: Syria chemical attack is ‘rebels' provocation in hope of intervention’ There was no 50/50 split of opinion (at G20) on the notion of a military strike against the Syrian President Bashar Assad, Putin stressed refuting earlier assumptions.

Only Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia and France joined the US push for intervention, he said, adding that the UK Prime Minister’s position was not supported by his citizens.

Russia “will help Syria” in the event of a military strike, Putin stressed as he responded to a reporter’s question at the summit.

http://rt.com/news/putin-g20-syria-meeting-511/

No hysteria please, objectivity only. 21:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Heh, will even this get the usual choir to nag about RT not being a reliable source? FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Are you suggesting RT has a record of misquoting Putin? Looks like wsj can confirm some of this. What's the problem? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
No RT is professional, it quotes Putin correctly. I was pleasantly surprised to find how much depth and breadth of coverage RT has. I know Americans who visit RT to find out whats going on in the USA. Re the G20 MSM in USA and Australia is not reporting fully how little support Obama has for an illegal non UN approved Syrian strike. I think this ref should be used in the article to present an article that shows the different stances ie. BRICs, not just the Western one Blade-of-the-South (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
“The categorical objections were raised by Russia, China, India and Indonesia – and I would like to call your attention to the fact that this is the world’s largest Islamic country in terms of the population – Argentina, Brazil, South Africa and Italy,” Putin said. [21] Albany Tribune and BBC [22], and The Hindu [23]. USchick (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
blablabla, Putin doesn't know what he says: 11x G-20 countries plus Spain have signed a Joint Statement on Syria: Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States of America [24] (Germany signed up a day later [25]). Isolation looks a lot different than that... especially as you only have 19 countries in the G20, the 20th member is the EU, who today supported action in Syria too! So: out of 20 members 12 say Syria is guilty and action needs to follow, Mexico is neutral and Russia stands with 6 others... 12 against 7! Putin needs to learn some math. noclador (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
noclador again you are another who misses the point of neutrality (on purpose?). Yes now later as events unfold 10 members plus USA signed a statement on Syria. But there was no joint statement on Syria, despite a 20-minute one-on-one talk between Obama and Putin on the sidelines of the summit on Friday. Obama did manage to persuade ten other G20 countries to sign a statement calling for what it calls a ‘strong international response’ in Syria but the statement fell short of endorsing military action. The EU came in later. Hardly ground breaking stats. Imagine if in the US elections the Democrats got 55% of the cast votes (at summits end) but the Wikipedia article on it only stressed the Democrat 55% leaving out the other, what is a substantial percentage, almost parity in fact. Thats powerfully biased coverage right. If one more country voted no or was neutral at summits end Obama would have got 50%. Thats why Im going to put some balance in.
Re this article and a possible consequences section. I would also like to point out some possible consequences for the USA of this proposed Syrian strike by the USA against the wishes of Russia China. China Russia hold 25% of all foreign held US Treasury paper. In short by dumping they could collapse the US economy. Something to watch. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-06/how-many-treasurys-do-russia-and-china-own. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Please stay on topic, see WP:NOTFORUM. Is anyone suggesting an edit? I'm not sure if we want to put these Putin quotes in the article. 03:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Nope, I am not " missing the point of neutrality"; and you're mixing things up! I have an issue with Putin not telling the full picture in his G-20 press conference. Also you only focus on the US not having full support of the G-20... 55% is still much more than the 35% Mr. Putin can muster. Also: if one includes the EU it is 60% to 35%, that is still an almost twice as strong majority support for the US position! (And NOT almost parity)! The point is not - as you claim one of neutrality or biased coverage - but one of deliberate mis-information by the President of Russia. noclador (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand the thread of this argument, I think someone is trying to argue Russia has a credible position?! Isnt that prima facie obviously untrue? Russia is defending Assad in the face of evidence - Russia does not claim to have contradictory evidence, they have simply argued anyway, without evidence. Also, the list of who agrees with the USA is much longer then that - Australia is also condemning the syrian government use of chemical weapons.... Ottawakismet (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

FT please refrain from misusing WP:NOTFORUM as you did above and in a previous thread. You have no consensus. Here is what was said to you in another thread even longer than this one by User:DIREKTOR. 'FT, you clearly misunderstand WP:NOTFORUM. Kindly refrain from messing with posts you personally disagree with and/or are annoyed by. Also please try to keep your language civil.

The point of the thread is that there is no hard evidence yet that Sarin? was deployed by Assad / Syria. This is not reflected in the article. Nor has there been a G20 joint statement stating there is hard evidence. Its all speculation right now. Even a UN report saying it was Sarin that was used, only identifies the chemical agent, not the group who fired it. Neutrality should reflect these facts not political maneuvering. Hopefully these issues will sort out soon. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Another Day, Another Chemical Attack?

Apart from an unconfirmed YouTube Video, there is little hard evidence that the Syrian government gassed it's own people. For why would the Syrian government cross the "Red Line", and invite the US to bomb them? While Assad might be bad - he ain't mad. 78.147.84.221 (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

"On 5 August, another chemical attack by the Syrian army was reported by the opposition, who documented the injured with video footage. The activists claim up to 400 people were effected by the attack in Adra and Houma of the Damascus suburbs." Unless confirmed, should not rebel claims be handled with care? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.115.90 (talk) 11:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

In the Chemical Weapons Section there is an unverfied image of people in Ghouta "killed by a chemical attack" in August 2013. Should this site use unconfirmed images? 84.13.9.197 (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Who is who in Syrian Goverment

I stumbled across this article which present an interesting chart of the Syrian Government, which might be of use for the editors. --PLNR (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Who is the Washington Institute for Near East Policy?

According to Wikipedia, WINEP "is a think tank based in Washington, D.C. focused on United States foreign policy in the Middle East. Established in 1985,the institute's mission statement states that it seeks to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in the Middle East and to promote the policies that secure them."

Just happened to "stumbled across" this? 2.96.115.90 (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Part of the Arab Spring?

The Arab Spring ended in most of the Middle East over a year ago (two years ago? Time flies). Syrian conflict came late into the game and is much larger in scale than the rest of the Arab Spring combined. Can we really call it part of the Arab Spring? 96.54.76.154 (talk) 05:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm Blade-of-the-South (talk) 06:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
You can call it whatever you want. Editors should be more interested in what reliable sources say. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

In what sense has it ended in any country.they are all still suffering political turmoil.108.175.224.13 (talk) 10:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Historians will name it. At the moment we cannot know if it's a part of Arab Spring still or World War III already. Keep it as it is. --Emesik (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

RS are calling it part of the Arab Spring [26] USchick (talk) 20:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
all conflicts resulting from the protest movements and its subsequent repressions are part of the Arab spring. Sopher99 (talk) 12:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Part of the Arab Spring - or a US backed "Color Revolts"? 2.96.115.90 (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Government fomenting sectarian violence in lead

User:Sopher99 just made this edit [27] supported by these two references, [28][29].

While the lead sentence used to read "According to columnist Feras Abu-Helal and former Homs resident Hassan Ali..." it now reads, "According to Homs residents, witnesses, columnists and analysts, the sectarian undertone was purposefully spread by the Assad government in an attempt to form disunity and quarreling among the restive population." The only columnist is Abu-Helal, however, and the only witness I could find making that statement is Hassan Ali.

If there are more, can those please be demonstrated using quotes here, either from these sources or otherwise? The government relies on its minority Alawite base and I wouldn't be surprised if this were true. Nevertheless we shouldn't make an army of "residents, witnesses, columnists and analsysts" from two people: Abu-Helal and Ali. -Darouet (talk) 16:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99 is well known for blaming Assad for all the evil of the world. He stubbornly adds ramblings of some individuals like it was a well-established fact. I try to remove such bullshit but the 1RR limitations are too strict to compete with his productivity.
As for the sectarianism, it is deeply rooted in the decades-long concentration of power within Alawite hands. These internal tensions and clear sectarian divide of external supporters (Shi'a Iran and Hezbollah behind Assad / Sunni Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey behind rebels) are factors of no lesser importance than use of Shabiha militia. We have already a lot of sources on this topic and no sane author points to a single reason for the sectarian nature of the conflict. The lede needs a general re-edit, but I'm too busy now to do it. --Emesik (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that huge mass of sectarian blabber belongs in the lede to begin with.

I think " In late 2012 UN report described the conflict as "overtly sectarian in nature", though both opposition and government forces denied that. " is enough for a lede, and everything else regarding sectarianism should be removed. Sopher99 (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sopher, I think your proposal is fine. -Darouet (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Sopher do you have quotes from those two or from other articles that show what you've written into the lead? -Darouet (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Removed. Sophers lead insert Statement is not supported by the refs and is weak. This is also far to flimsy and not lead material. one or two people does not make a lead sentence. Expand in body in a NPOV manner if more refs are found, at all. Use this as guideline WP:LEAD Blade-of-the-South (talk) 00:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

As a long-term supporter of the Free Syrian Army, and someone who continues to use weak evidence to make a (sexed-up) case against the Syrian Government, should not Sopher work for the British Government? 2.96.115.90 (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Syria: Up to 635 Reported Dead in Chemical Attack - Middle East - News". Israel National News. 2013-08-21. Retrieved 2013-08-27.
  2. ^ "Syria 'chemical attack': Distressing footage under analysis". BBC. 2013-08-23. Retrieved 2013-08-28.
  3. ^ The Guardian, 21 August 2013.[30]
  4. ^ "Syria | Reuters.com". Live.reuters.com. 2009-02-09. Retrieved 2013-08-27.
  5. ^ Abrahams, Fred (22 August 2013). "Dispatches: The Longest Short Walk in Syria?". Human Rights Watch. Archived from the original on 22 August 2013. Retrieved 23 August 2013. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ Deutsch, Anthony (22 August 2013). "Analysis: Clock ticks while experts kept away from Syria gassing site". Reuters. Retrieved 24 August 2013.
  7. ^ Fred Abrahams (22 August 2013). "On Syria's atrocities, the Security Council must seek justice". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 24 August 2013.
  8. ^ "Statement Attributable to the Spokesperson for the Secretary-General on alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria". United Nations Secretary-General. 25 August 2013. Retrieved 25 August 2013.
  9. ^ "Syria to allow UN to inspect 'chemical weapons' site". BBC News. 25 August 2013. Retrieved 25 August 2013.
  10. ^ Marshall, Tim. "Syria: UN Inspectors Find 'Valuable Evidence'". News.sky.com. Retrieved 2013-08-30.
  11. ^ Peter Walker and Tom McCarthy. "Syria: US secretary of state John Kerry calls chemical attack 'cowardly crime' - as it happened" (in (in Dutch)). theguardian.com. Retrieved 26 August 2013.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
  12. ^ http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=43820#.Ui30UOZhKEI
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_30&oldid=1134390944"