Jump to content

Talk:Syrian civil war/Archive 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23→Archive 25

Propaganda

The Propaganda section read like propaganda itself....Until my edits, it was 100% about Syrian Government propaganda - ignoring all other propaganda. Harldy balanced guys !! Frenchmalawi (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

And The sources you've used to introduce 'balance' look like rank propagnda pieces , not RS to me. you patting yourself on the back for saving the section looks laughable to me. Sayerslle (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
If you're make it more balanced, at least do it professionally. The section now looks like a mess.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Why are you telling us about this. Clearly you gone ahead and fixed it yourself. Sopher99 (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sopher - Every edit on an article about an ongoing Civil War is likely to be controversial...because of all the politics involved. That's why I made the edit and provided an explanation....No one has actually questioned the substance of my edit (balance) though criticism (unfair, I think give that the main source currently listed is just a CNN editorial) has been made of the sources. But I am happy to take the feed back on board and I will update it with more sources. I think every one accepts it is currently a highly slanted one sided paragraph. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I have now added in further sources to address the criticism made:
  • Russia Today (a major global news provider) reports about propaganda;
  • The Guardian (UK) reportage on propaganda;
  • Daily Star report which quotes the Syrian Minister for Foreign Affairs specifically claiming that the reports around Syria using chemicals on its own people were propaganda.
I think it’s more balanced now and well sourced. I think we also need to be careful. We have to say that “propaganda” is alleged...as not to do so ignores that one man’s propaganda is another’s fair comment etc. We can’t be taking sides. Frenchmalawi (talk) 22:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Russia Today and Global Research are not reliable sources, and Stopwar is a fringe site. Daily Star is fine though. Sopher99 (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying CNN is acceptable but Russia Today is not ? If so, why are you saying that (CNN is currently referenced in the same section)? Do you only accept American/Western media sources ? Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I would add that Russia Today is an important source: it's correspondent has even interviewed President Assad as recently as November 2012...You would need to have good reasons to exclude it. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I am in fact saying that CNN is reliable while Russia Today is not. Russia Today is state-owned and government controlled, has no editorial review, and refers to one side of the conflict as terrorists. Its not about western or eastern. For example the Jarkata Globe is a reliable source and Indonesia is far far east. Sopher99 (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Man, then why we have the article Terrorism in Yemen?! Why we refer to one side of the conflict as "terrorists"?! If some media call one side of conflict as terrorists, it's definitely not reliable. 95.135.188.196 (talk) 08:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
If you want an independent Russian source, try Interfax. Sopher99 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think your treatment of Russia Today and CNN is incredibly biased and unfair. I think it is politically motivated. I think this warrants separate discussion. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added yet more sources on this Section. It's really important that for balance it must explain that propaganda is being reported on all sides (Syria Gov., Rebels, and Foreign Govs.). There are now lots of sources referenced backing this up. It's pretty widely reported on. Frenchmalawi (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Each source you put was either an editorial/opinion piece or a fringe site. In the case of the two Russia Today sources and the Daily Star sources, they speculated how chemical weapons preparation might be propaganda. We already have that written into the section. Sopher99 (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Trying to balance the section is fine, but please don't use editorials. Not sure about RT.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Extreme care should be used with RT. Financed, run by the Russian state, and it's patently transparent what's going on there with the channel.HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Using such 'reasoning', extra care should be taken with reports from the BBC. For it could be said that this TV station is a Propaganda Arm of the British state. And yet, with Russia Today or the BBC or Fox, most people are aware of where they are coming from. The questioning of Russia Today could be seen as a disinformation drive - aimed at deflecting attention away from False Flag attacks. Since it is patently clear what is going on here, Wikipedia should take extreme care when considering the banning of any TV outlets - least it be seen as a Propaganda Arm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.83.33 (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia start banning news outlets?

If news outlets (such as RT or Press TV) are really as bad as some people are trying to paint of them, Wikipedia must ban them right away. Or, admit that such news outlets are no more or less truthful than any other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.83.41 (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

They are bad and their information has to be scrutinized and re-checked in real sources. Both of those belong and/or are funded by governments that do NOT hide their propaganda plans and goals. Both of their foreign ministries explicitly have included media as part of official state propaganda and have expressed that in their planning documents and declarations. However, while often unreliable or dubious, they still can be cited, as long as independent media supports their claims. 46.109.240.5 (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Then again, since the US State Department and British government also use TV outlets as part of their propaganda, should not care be taken with 'news' reports from Fox, CBS and The BBC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.61.136 (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

BBC is government owned, as is PBS, does that mean they are not reliable news sources because their governments have given their support to the rebels? A did we not see CNN, Fox and the American corporate new outlets, just parrot the US' gov't's line on WMDs in Iraq, and yet they were not gov't owned but repeated propaganda all the same. I don't think there is a good enoguh justification to single out any one news source entirely here.74.89.65.108 (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Are there enough comments to allow for a general agreement, AGAINST Wikipedia banning news outlets? 86.190.61.237 (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Propaganda: Sources back up edit

Currently the propaganda sections says observers have stated that propaganda has been used by the Syrian Government and the Rebels since the start of the conflict. I want to add in that observers have also reported propaganda on the part of foreign governments. This is something that has been widely reported on. I’ve added this and it has been repeatedly deleted. On the last occasion, I added it on the basis of the following sources – To those who are deleting my edit, please identify which sources here you do not regard as authority for the edit:

Thanks. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Propaganda section pointless

This section should be removed completely. Propaganda happens in every modern war, having a article section about it just causes contention on Wikipedia talk.--197.170.28.93 (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A Section, about Propaganda, is Helpful

And because Propaganda happens in every war, that is the reason why this article (about Propaganda) must remain. No one really interested in the truth would say otherwise - unless the people they work for say otherwise? Unless they have something to hide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.61.158 (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Real Life Propaganda:

Syrian mystery of Amina Arraf: 'A gay girl in Damascus'

In light of who the 'gay girl' turned out to be - the BBC Newsnight report is well worth viewing.

86.190.61.204 (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Deraa child recalls the act that sparked a revolt

“The children were arrested, detained and, by most accounts, tortured, sparking an outcry from their families which quickly evolved into a full-scale revolt. When the protests were met with deadly force, the movement grew, spreading across the country.”

The Daily Star March 15, 2013

86.190.61.204 (talk) 13:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

POV infobox

its quite obvious usa continues to support the rebels financially so it should be included in the info box..infobox should not be for military involvement alone..lets not deceive the readers and make it seem like usa & israel are not involved in this syrian destabilization movement..usa pledges 60million [1] ..israel attacks syria [2] Baboon43 (talk) 05:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I've had eliminate the separation between FSA and Mujahideen, as both had same main objective (overthrow Syrian gov.), had combat together against Syrian Army and do not had clashed between them, as for example kurdish forces had done. The only argument to separate FSA and Mujahideen in the infobox is simply personal political interests. Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey baboon mind looking up towards the "renewed support for opposition combatants" section? Sopher99 (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Why you insult people? Its because you dont had any argument? It seems so...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any insults. If you think "baboon" is an insult, it happens to be his literal username. Lots of people call me Sopher on wikipedia. I don't get mad. Sopher99 (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Mmm, excuses, I was wrong in this, thinking in other things...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Checking on the Sopher99 page and mention is made of User:"Fanzine999”. This is a sock puppet of Iloveandrea and has been blocked - "indefinitely”. In turn, User:"Iloveandrea” is the operator of an account that has “abusively used one or more accounts" - CheckUser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.61.136 (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Theres a lot of Pot calling the kettle black in all this pov complaining imo. whats "this syrian destabilization movement" if not pov talk?- are scud missiles on its own people part of the "syrian stabilization movement"? saying baboon was not used as a username is OR imo Sayerslle (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Pot calling the kettle black? Lol. I guess it hurts more to be hit by Scud missiles than by suicide and car bombs, huh? FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
so what are you saying? israel can attack a sovereign nation anytime it wants and its still not to be considered involved in the war? Baboon43 (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The whole point for these guys is to not imply in any way that Israel is on the same side as the "rebels". That would undermine their delusional idea that the "revolution" is somehow Leftist and anti-imperialistic in nature. It should be pretty clear by now that it is not. In the same way, the Kurds need to be on the same side as the rebels, because we want to show that the "opposition" is one happy multi-ethnic/confessional force, oh, and its liberal too. Just give it up, you guys, it is getting ridiculous. FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Your on point. Baboon43 (talk) 14:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah because every news report brings fresh news of escalating Israeli involvement doesnt it? er, no. Sayerslle (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
why is usa not in the info box? they pledged 60million. Baboon43 (talk) 14:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Heres a guardian article on attitude of Israel , - "Israel opposes the western arming of Syrian rebels because of its fears that the weapons will end up in the hands of such groups -the al-Nusra Front [and] a Sinai-based militant organisation, Ansar Bait al-Maqdis, which is focused on attacks on Israel. "[3] - Iran seems very involved - runs counter to the baboon/funmonk narrative but still, maybe theres something in it Sayerslle (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
I guess they changed their mind [4], huh? Oh, the crocodile tears. I mean humanity. FunkMonk (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Wow.. this is one weird war. Peres trying to stop the massacre of Arabs.. the effort it must've took to keep a straight face. -- Director (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Cut down on the silly rhetoric please, Sayerslle. If those of "your people" are engaged in a rebellion, and you're in a goddamn illegal civil war - of course you're going to use scuds and artillery and the damn air force. That's slanted media nonsense. "Assad shelling his own people" is technically correct and sounds very bad, so its a perfect phrase out of the media workshop. When you think about it though, the same could be said of any government force in any civil war since the birth of shelling. Lincoln too was "shelling his own people" at Fredericksburg and Richmond e.g..

And yes, since the rebels are all legally civilians, and since the distinction between combatant and civilian is blurred in practically all civil wars, high civilian casualties are something to be expected. I'm certain the killing of civilians is by no means one-sided.

Its fascinating to hear how the media have somehow managed to turn artillery, one of the most basic implements of warfare, into some sort of especially sinister method of conflict. -- Director (talk) 01:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

P.s. Be advised I'll be filing an ARBCOM report on this article and its infobox when I return. The pro-Islamist rebel POV remains unbelievably thick here - apparently thanks to "professional POV-pushers" working 'round the clock for the cause. This is an encyclopedia first and foremost and must remain painfully neutral on such a sensitive issue. Regards -- Director (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

@Direkto - silly rhetoric? No i dont think so - just pointed to an article that bore on Israeli attitudes that I believe were the subject at the start of this discussion. "the media workshop" - is that like 'the lamestream media?" Sayerslle (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You are crazy if you think that we are doing this because we are pro-islamist rebels. One can easily accuse you of doing everything you are doing because you favor the regime. The article is neutral and balanced as we speak. You just believe something is neutral if the weight of issue is represented equally with another, even if the issue is not notable. In other words you want minor details to have the same weight as major ones, particularly if it negatively reflects what you believe to be mainstream Sopher99 (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Lol, I repeat: It is easy as hell to claim an article is "balanced and neutral" when it only conveys your own POV, and leaves out opposing views. That's Fox News tactics right there. FunkMonk (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
And it is easy as hell to claim the article is pov pushing when it goes against your March 8th point of view. That's one of the more milder Syrian regime tactics right there. But never the less reflective of someone who has a "stake in the conflict".Sopher99 (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
"March 8th point of view"? What does that even mean? It is precisely a lack of personal involvement that makes people objective. As far as I'm concerned, you Sopher have utterly discredited yourself with regard to WP:AGF on this subject, and imo should probably be topic-banned for all this disruption here. With all your statements, its impossible for you to even claim that you're neutral on this issue.
And since you stated the "Syrian regime" are Arab Nazis, am I to interpret the above as you accusing people of using "more milder" Nazi tactics? The bottom line is we went through DR without any decisive results, and I believe this is significant enough to try ARBCOM next. I'll post a report when I get back; the waiting period may crystallize the situation even further 'til then. When the arbitration starts, Sopher, be sure to share your "Assad's a Nazi" theories there as well.. -- Director (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Sopher doesn't knowingly support Jihadis. He still thinks they're Marxist revolutionaries, some guy on Twitter told him so. I've personally met western Socialists with the same delusion. They were going to Syria to join the fight on the "rebel" side last month. They had read a little too much Orwell. After a little research on the rebels, they changed their mind. FunkMonk (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Marxism is not high on the political positions I respect, despite what some guy on state tv may tell you. I also fail to see a connection between regular socialists and jihadists. Sopher99 (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding a "march 8th point of view" I don't mean it in any more depth than simply following the point of view that the March 8th party in Lebanon holds. Funkmunk, who I assume to be an Alawite from Lebanon, is inclined to be against anything his party is against, particularly with the long civil war hanging in his nation's history.
The idea that I am "utterly discredited" is completely in your head. After long debates with me and increasingly negative attitudes towards my presentations of facts, you have built it up in your head that nothing I say can be trusted or appreciated.
Regarding "mild tactics", yes, ludicrous accusations are mild when you compare it to cluster bombs and scuds. As for the nazi argument, your misinterpreting. I noted that that the Baathist party is a socialist party based on Nationalism. like the nazis. It just so happens that all other Nationalist socialists parties who lead governments took a path of oppression like their ancestor. Some worse than others (Iraq, Syria, Burma ect) Sopher99 (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
You're not entirely correct regarding my background, but in any case, my views are not due to sectarian affiliation, rather the contrary. All Middle Eastern Leftists (including myself, those of Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, excluding those that have been bought by Qatar) are against Islamist revolutions. And Zionism, for that matter. FunkMonk (talk) 03:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Because the only thing you hate more than your enemy is your enemy's enemy. Left as in liberal policies (high fiscal contribution from government + low social regulation), or left as in cult nasserism? Sopher99 (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
As in anti-western imperialism. FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, all I am is a user interested in this subject (from Croatia), who has a lot of experience with infoboxes and is disgusted by the bias in this one. I know how to properly write them is what I'm saying. Now, I don't like infoboxes, to be sure, but ironically that's the main reason why I focus on fixing them as much as possible.
I am not "pro-Assad" in any way, but the blatantly-slanted media coverage of this conflict creates a need for careful effort to bring the article up to WP:NPOV. And a strict adherence to a neutral point of view is my only goal here. I can't stand bias of this sort, and having worked the Yugoslavia articles for years I can smell it a mile off. -- Director (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"blatantly-slanted media coverage"? The article only uses reliable and neutral sources. That essentially excludes most Eastern European and Middle Eastern news agencies.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
We use neutral and reliable media sources, but must also be careful what we source with them. Policy warns about the reliability of media sources, I don't have to tell you that (WP:NEWSORG) - these are not scholarly publications. And a blind man can see "western" media have been mostly on the side of the rebels in a very big way (indeed, it could arguably be said the "West" itself is very much on their side). The "Assad shelling his own people" rhetoric above is a good example.
I'm not saying we should start making up our own OR, but in order to keep to WP:NPOV, we must be careful with media sources. -- Director (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This is interesting. For what agreement is there that Wikipedia should start excluding news outlets? And, by "reliable and neutral" sources, does this include the state funded (and controlled) BBC? 86.190.61.245 (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

That is indeed interesting, as you say. I've seen nothing in policy about censoring news agencies based on their geographic location. "Russia is on the side of Assad therefore sources in Russia are biased" - that doesn't really work when the US e.g. is on the side of the rebels and news agencies thereof are not being censored. Its probably a practice ARBCOM should review as well. -- Director (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
You are very biased. State controlled sources and fringe sites are not reliable period, no matter what country they are in. I don't think it is a coincidence that the media you want to see on this article comes from iran and russia. Mainstream media does not support the rebels. Especially given the lengthy interviews with al nusra and the articles about the "islamification of the conflict". The fact is that if you report on the Syrian regime's crimes - even if you report on rebels ones as well - you will perceive the media to be against Assad. that is because Assad's government's whole message is that they are the victims 100%. If any media whatsoever tells a different story, they are against the regime, because they are denying the regime's central message. Rebels don't care half as much as assad does on media exposure to their wrongs, because they don't commit even half the amount of crimes. As confirmed by the UN, the UNHRC, Amnesty international, Human Rights Watch and so on.Sopher99 (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
You're the POV-pusher around here, you made that abundantly clear yourself over and over again, so please keep that childish mirror argument to yourself ("I know you are but what am I"). Yes, as surprising as this may be to you, state owned media agencies can be reliable sources as well. In fact, let me clarify this for you:
  • On Wikipedia, you can't dismiss sources based on their country of origin
  • you can't dismiss sources based on whether a state owns them or not
  • and you can't dismiss sources simply because you, a random internet user, think they're "biased"
The policy of this website does not support you in this. So claims like that are essentially just the usual POV nonsense. To dismiss a source altogether based on a claim that its entirely "biased" or "unreliable" - you need some kind of independent corroboration to that effect. D'you understand how this project works? -- Director (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Iraq attacks the FSA

[5] --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Not this again. Turkey attacked the Syrian army several times. The Syrian army attacked Lebanon several times. Israel attacked the Syrian army twice. The Syrian army attacked Jordan Twice. Combatants in the war are those consistently fighting inside Syria. That's why Hezbollah Iran and Ahrar al Sham are in the infobox, but not Iraq Lebanon Jordan Turkey or Papua New Guinea. Sopher99 (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I am still not sure about adding Iran to infobox outside the support. I mean training and logistics are Iranian thing in this conflict but so far their combat involvement has been none or at most limited. Hezbollah is another story, though. They are holding funerals for their "martyrs" every second day. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree. This NYT article says "Iran has supplied the government with weapons and paramilitary Quds Force advisers", giving the impression that the Iranian forces in Syria don't have a combatant role.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This article gives a different story. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/08/28/iranian-general-admits-fighting-every-aspect-war-in-defending-syria-assad/ besides of which, the FSA captured 47 Iranian rev guards to which they traded for 2000 prisoners. Sopher99 (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting to add Iraq in the infobox or anything. I just thought I'll paste the link here just in case it might be useful somehow. Time will show whether or not Iraq will be dragged into this conflict. --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Iraq seems to disagree with you. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Typical sectarian double standard based on the political ideas of some editors. Its the only argument to include Iran in the infobox but not include Iraq or Lebanon. This type of POV is what makes WP less reliable every day... Ah, I'm gonna add again & again the POV banner, as only a blind dont see that at least dozens of editors (see talk page) consider this article as POV or unbalanced. Other thing would be simply censorship...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Iran has 15,000 elite troops in Syria, and has even admitted its involvement. What more does it take? --Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
15.000 troops according to what? The "rebels"? FunkMonk (talk) 13:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
According to that notorious western imperialist mouthpiece Renmin Ribao as reported by FSA stooges Russia Today [6]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
So neither the Iranians or Syrians have confirmed it. Could just be a propaganda boost from the Chinese to make their support for Syria seem less like a waste of resources to their own public. In any case, it is only one, quite indirectly involved, source. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

40 Syrian regime soldiers killed in Iraq

They retreated into Iraq after the opposition captured the Yaarubiyeh border crossing in Syrian Kurdistan. Apparently they were unwelcome as only a day later they have been massacred: Attackers 'kill Syrian soldiers' in Iraq.

US State Department 'information'? That said, since most of the BBC report was from the so-called "Syrian" Observatory for Human Rights based in the UK - how much trust should be placed on it? 81.141.83.23 (talk) 09:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

They were obviously not killed by Iraqi soldiers. Al Qaeda in Iraq operates across the border, if no one has noticed yet. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

There is now an Iraqi Free Army, inspired by the Syrian Free Army to fight against the Malaki Shia-dominated gov't. Also, if you go to the Wikipedia page on the Iraqi Free Army, it references and links a few article that talk about the Syrian Free Army's sectarian violance on Syrian Shia. Something not really mentioned at all in this article.68.81.112.197 (talk) 01:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

POV tags getting removed

Some users keep removing the POV tags, and claim there are no POV issues. That's easy to say, because their POV is the one presented in the article! We have several problems, I will list a few below.

  • The Kurdish issue is not resolved. The Kurdish militants are a third, separate force.
  • The foreign backers issue is not resolved.
  • The foreign belligerents issue is not resolved.
  • The background issue is not resolved.

Once these issues are resolved, the tags can be removed, and NOT before. FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Care to explain to me how any of these are pov pushing? Especially when its your point of view that is trying to be pushed? Sopher99 (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
You don't understand the POV tags. If there is disagreement about the balance of an article, the tags need to be there to show readers that the neutrality is disputed. Of course you don't think there are such issues, but that is simply because your POV is the one presented! FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Neutrality is not being disputed, because everything you are disagreeing with is backed up by uncontested reliable sources. Sopher99 (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
No, because what's in the article is your interpretation of those sources. These issues have been discussed many, many times, the problem is, we have a little gang of Internet revolutionaries who think they own the article, and need to protect their pet-rebels from bad publicity. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • And now we're edit warring over a friggin' POV tag!? This article has clear POV issue,s otherwise we wouldn't have so much damn trouble on the talk page and so much edit warring. Come to your senses, for feck's sake. The article is not neutral by any stretch of the imagination. Until the issues are resolved, the tags stay. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
The problem with this article is that we have a POV pushing gang consisting og Futuretrillionaire, Sopher, and perhaps one other, who tag team revert[7] every edit that goes against their agenda, on a page they think they own.[8] They then claim proposals that have simply been bullied out by them were not implemented due to "discussions", even when consensus is clearly against them. This needs to be taken care of. FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
im not sure why the POV tags are quickly removed as if editors are trying to hide something..my question is why is the usa & israel are not in the info box while you have iran hezbollah etc..there's enough RS that says usa has now given the rebels non lethal aid & israel has attacked syria several times. Baboon43 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
If you want to know why try checking the archives of the countless times we discussed this. Sopher99 (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
And if you look at the archives, you can see that there is usually either no consensus, or consensus against Sopher and co. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thats your opinion Funkmunk. I see 3 users: DIREKTOR, Baboon43, Funkmunk, who POV push and find every detail they can from the gutter to try to put it on equal weight with widely sourced content, in a bid to fight some sort of "western propaganda". Sopher99 (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, we hardly ever implement anything, because it is reverted on sight by Kool and the Gang here. We always discuss on the talk page instead. Furthermore, I, Direktor, and Baboon rarely ever post here, while you and Trillionaire zealously hang around 24-7, so I don't exactly see how we are the POV pushers. You guys simply think you own the page. It's plain and simple. The rest of us don't care much, but we recognise POV-pushing when we see it and have to speak up. Many others have noticed this too, but editors are leaving this page in droves, because they're fed up with your methods. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
is that how you settle a dispute by saying "look at the archives or "its already been discussed"..well discuss it again..there's RS that says usa has given support why is saudi in there and not the u.s.a? how am i pov pushing when i havnt edited the article? regardless of weather you think my discussion is pov or not, its whats in the article that matters. Baboon43 (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
On that issue you brought, we have already said that once the support lands in Syria as promised, we would put the USA in the infobox. Ironically Funkmunk is against putting USA in infobox, suggesting to "wait things" out Sopher99 (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no "irony" involved, since we have waited already. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
the rebels wont announce they have received the aid..its been pledged last month so they are receiving the aid..aside from that israel needs to be in the box as well..they have attacked syria. Baboon43 (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

This tag edit warring has to stop. I don't know whether or not the article needs these maintenance tags; however, this should be decided by discussion, not by edit warring. If you really can't agree, please use dispute resolution, but do not edit war the tags back and forth. This is a final warning - anyone who continues edit warring with the tags (by which I mean edits the tags on the page, even if they don't technically break 3RR) will be blocked. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

With the exception of baboon43, who kindly accepted my request for him to self-revert 1 of the tags which I felt was the most controversial, despite me and him being on opposite sides of the argument. Sopher99 (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Yep - the self-revert is fine. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The argument that the article is Neutral POV because the offending areas are backed by Reliable Sources is surely invalid, as the sources themselves are all alligned with one particular point of view. Even the sources themselves primarily quote unverified reports and overwhelmingly base their reporting on anecdotal evidence from "activists". In the case of ongoing events such as this, media interpretation as well as the interpretation of editors on this site will be an array of different points of view. The mainstream media itself is not neutral in these instances, and all news agencies have certain agendas and objectives which affect their reporting. This reality is in fact known in the industry as "narrative building". For example Al Jazeera has on repeatedly confirmed that they support regime change in Syria and sympathise with the opposition. They have made these statements in their own reporting. Therefore, given the fact that media organisations can never be trusted as totally neutral in these issues, we must acknowledge that the article is prone to non-neutral POV edits. MrDjango (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we please remove the tag now? It was added by Baboon because he wants to see the USA in the infobox, something completely against what was agreed at the mediation. It was re-added by FunkMonk, who has a WP:COI with this article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No, we can't, because the article is still rife with your POV, as outlined in my first comment. As long as the neutrality of this article is reasonably questioned, as it is on a daily basis, the tags should remain. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
not just the usa but also israel has to be in the infobox. there's lots of sources that indicate israel attacked syria couple weeks ago Baboon43 (talk) 22:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think this article should be fully protected until an agreement can be made, it has been how long now these discussions have been going on? The article should be improved upon and I dont see it happening. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary. Quite simply we have reached a "limit" of 200k bytes. We have reached the 200k byte limit many many times before, and each time Futuretrillionaire went on a massive summarizing spree. Basicly we have 400-500k bytes worth of info summarized in 200k. The lack of improvement is because new content is in de-facto reserve only for genuinely widespread notable news. Sopher99 (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Neutrality always trumps size issues on Wikipedia. Nice try. FunkMonk (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Article-objective?

In whole of this article i don't see any example of neutral point of view.

  • Why editors and administrators writing this article represents the current view created by "sources" which are selected by editors?
  • Why do administrators take into account the sources that are condemning the current government in Syria and the same media sources that write about the crimes of the opposition are not included?
  • Do any of the authors of this article may indicate which part of that article is objective?

This is sad for me, but what can i "say": This article can't be objective if the article is edit by such users as: "Futuretrillionaire" , "Sopher99" or even EkoGraf. Just look to the user Futuretrillionaire infobox, or to talk page of Sopher99, this article is represent his point of view. Also these users are rewarded with "stars", it's mean that your entire encyclopedia is biased pile of information, and the rest of Wikipedias, translate your information into their languages.78.8.99.173 (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

heres an article on kilings in Aleppo , the bodies in the river [9] - interviews with locaals etc - can you imagine the article written 'objectively' by Assadists and Putin lovers - it would say 'the men in aleppo were killed by terrorist jihadists' and it would be sourced to Press TV or some Russian source - and the article would be a Mickey Mouse article in minutes. personally I'm glad the brain-washed 'neutral' pov pushers dont like the article. gives me hope it might be ok. - not that i read wikipedia articles on issues like this -prefer the papers- because they are so liable to be hijacked by dictator lovers. Also - 11 March - U.N. says multiple cold blood murders, major violations, of people just going about their lives, set upon by pro-regime local 'committees'- how do yu think that should be spun? this is sourced to the U.N. - Sayerslle (talk) 12:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)86.190.61.237 (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, and in terms of the news, the picture seems very well framed. How the bodies just happened to be lined-up - almost as if they were carefully placed there? 81.141.83.115 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

did you skip this bit - "All the men were from neighbourhoods in the eastern rebel-held part of Aleppo. Most were men of working age. Many disappeared at regime checkpoints."- if you lot get hold of the article it'll be garbage in no time. Sayerslle (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
"just happened to be lined up"—well yeah, they had just been hauled out of the river that they were floating down. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

So they had just been hauled out of the river – and then carefully placed back on the (drained) river bed? Then again, it certainly makes for shock news. 81.141.83.115 (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

According to Sopher and Futilionaire, the article can't be biased, since what they believe to be the truth is fully represented. Everyone who disagrees is biased. Everyone needs to understand this, or else they will be tag-team reverted. FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
""According to Sopher and Futilionaire, the article can't be biased, since what they believe to be the truth is fully represented."" and what with others truth, represented by sources from the same media that you don't choose representing crimes of the opposition, and western support?
You are biased, using this "principle", it can be considered that the war in Syria is responsible by U.S. government, the opposition in Syria, and even Jimbo Wales, and I can the same like you, so cleverly selected sources to prove it!!!
Authors should look to any source from a distance, but here the authors in their beliefs openly support the "European Union" which reduced the embargo on arms supplies to Syria, supports "United Nations." , which comes out most effectively covering images of Picasso during the wars of the "peace" in the world. They love to read "The New York times", which is probably the loudest of all newspapers condemns Assad, and a lot of others...
Additionally reading user Sopher99 comments, and the others who create their views on wikipedia is so tragic that I want to cry now. I do not understand how such behavior can be tolerated by administrators? Converation of Sopher99 and EkoGraf about Removal of references it also pathetic, very interesting. Maybe the founder of wikipedia will repeat on my questions that i send him on his email, another criticism of Wikipedia in the newspapers rather than harm should help this wonderful project 78.9.148.195 (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Wiki is to provide information, not political beliefs
I renew my request for three answers to questions:
  • 1.Why editors and administrators writing this article represents the current view created by "sources" which are selected by editors?
  • 2. Why do administrators take into account the sources that are condemning the current government in Syria and the same media sources that write about the crimes of the opposition are not included?
  • 3. Do any of the authors of this article may indicate which part of that article is complete objective?

78.9.148.195 (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC) 

I'm still waiting for the answer, of course you will probaly wait 20 days and MiszaBot will automatically archive this thread, pathetic :( --78.8.247.115 (talk) 02:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
My comment was sarcastic. I think their methods are atrocious. FunkMonk (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk-Page or Talking-Shop? Since the three reasonable questions are yet to be answered, One-Sided-Sopher can say anything, and that there is little general agreement on this page, would it not be a idea to un-protect the Syrian page? 86.190.61.237 (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

According the report in question, someone called Sheikh Aurora said that: "Jabhat Al-Nusra is more honest and noble than Bashar and his gang. They would not commit such a crime”. Is this the very same Al-Nusra the U.S. has recently blacklisted as a foreign terrorist organization? And part of al Qaeda in Iraq? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.83.115 (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol, Arour of "Alawites for mince meat" fame? FunkMonk (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

In light of the fact that, as well as being part of the FSA, the Al-Nusra are a foreign terrorist organization, is it not reasonable to ask whether the men in aleppo were killed by terrorist jihadists? 81.141.83.115 (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Buddy, please provide a source that references a time when anyone from Al Nusra claimed to be under the mantle of the FSA, if you can, otherwise don't say the two are the same. The name 'FSA' is mostly just a moniker that different groups of fighters use, true, but it's not one that Al Nusra has ever used to describe themselves, so they're not part of it. 146.151.103.231 (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Mango

“Syrian rebels defy US and pledge allegiance to jihadi group” Telegraph 10 Dec 2012. OK bud, ever if we agree that Al-Nusra are not part of that grouping, might it be said that Al Nusra have very close links to the FSA?

"TIME Exclusive: Meet the Islamist Militants Fighting Alongside Syria’s Rebels" 26, July 2012 86.190.61.204 (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

For god's sake! I renew my request for three answers to questions:
  • 1.Why editors and administrators writing this article represents the current view created by "sources" which are selected by editors?
  • 2. Why do administrators take into account the sources that are condemning the current government in Syria and the same media sources that write about the crimes of the opposition are not included?
  • 3. Do any of the authors of this article may indicate which part of that article is complete objective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.8.158.36 (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • 1. The sources report, not create. Since this is a current event no "views" are listed in this article. The closest thing to "views" we have here is the sectarianism page, where the views of Sunnis on Alawis and visa-versa are stated. Otherwise everything consists of news for this ongoing conflict. No speculation.
  • 2. We do include the crimes of the opposition. You can find crimes by both under the "impact" section of this article
  • 3. The entire article is objective. Every sentence is sourced. Each Source reliable and independent. The infobox seems to be what troubles some though. Sopher99 (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Start of the uprising

Deraa is called the "Cradle of the Revolution" because that's where the major protests began. These protests began on 15 March 2011. [10] Someone keeps changing that section to make it seem like the uprising began in Damascus. Although there were minor protests there, Damascus is not considered by the mainstream media to be the start of the uprising.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi FutureTrillionaire, I added the reference to Damascus and Aleppo back, based on the BBC article. This keeps the article factually accurate, while keeping emphasis on Deraa, which is what you seem to feel is important here. Hope that's a workable solution. -Darouet (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

"Conflict of interest" tag

This is quickly becomming a finger pointing arguement discussion, lets focus on the article. See also: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, and/or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard both are better places to take this discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Futilionaire keeps adding this tag[11], which is meant for users who have a direct involvement in a given topic. Since I don't, I will report him if he continues. It is like listing all American editors on the talk page of an American election article. They're all affected, yes, but not directly involved. Anyhow, it seems Sopher has more of a "conflict of interest", judging on this comment.[12] He's basically saying he knows more than everyone else (even the reliable sources), because he laps up everything the FSA PR-wing writes on Twitter (which apparently gives him the ability to read their minds), and that he can therefore bypass all the sources (and editors) he disagrees with (not to mention throwing out unsourced numbers and percentages whenever it suits his cause). Can the POV be more obvious and crude? FunkMonk (talk) 03:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hard to imagine how.. -- Director (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
You are hardly helping your case by posting dumb biased remarks like 'good riddance' as you did below. Kind of an odd stance to take for someone who devotes their entire wikipedia existence to cheerleading the losing side in a civil war (although other editors are surely more mature than to say the same the day Assad gets lyched).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.247 (talk • contribs)
Lol, I'm probably the least active user on this talk page, yet it appears my few, sporadic comments pack some punches, if they can provoke multiple random IPs to whine and cry about them. And accusations of "cheerleading" is one of my common remarks on this page, seems someone is picking up my tricks. As for "the losing side", whoever wins (government or insurgents), Syria has lost. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Syrian army kills al-Nusra Front commander. If confirmed, that this head terrorist has been killed, then is not Good Riddance a reasonable thing to say? For, apart from the US State Department, why would any reasonable person want to cheerlead the FSA armed rebels or the terrorist? 86.190.61.204 (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Because a core pillar of Wikipedia is WP:NEU. Users like Funkmonk, DIREKTOR, Ekograf, etc. are unbelievably biased in their editing (including talk page remarks which expose their motives) yet are the first to cry bias/neutrality/POV due to the simple fact that the vast majority of people don't agree with their ideologically driven worldviews. Most countries recognize pro regime militas as terrorists, yet it is stupid to post remarks like "good another dead ba'athist" every time one gets killed, as happens every day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.247 (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Lol, and who are you? Regular user who doesn't dare use his own name when he whines? Pathetic. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Classic WP:CONSPIRACY. Next you will be accussing people of being in the "access of evil" like the geniuses at The Syria Times. You want to see pathetic then read that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.179 (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you even know what the word "conspiracy" means? It implies a multitude of people. Not one (you). FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Do you even know how to read an article? The WP article refers (mostly) to accusations aganist one person. Seeing as you clearly didn't read the article, I will draw your attention to this particular sentence; "No one who edits Wikipedia with a conspiracy theory mentality can ever be taken seriously because that mindset violates AGF on so many levels." This describes you perfectly Funkmonk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.179 (talk) 00:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Too bad. But whatever a users reputation is, he will always be taken more seriously than an IP. Sorry. FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Nope wrong again. And the good thing is your bias is easily tracked due to the fact that you have a committed user account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.142 (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"No one who edits Wikipedia with a conspiracy theory mentality can ever be taken seriously because that mindset violates AGF on so many levels." Does not this describes the hopelessly pro-rebel supporters - perfectly. 81.141.87.253 (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Syrian army kills al-Nusra Front commander in Dayr al-Zawr

Abu Mohammad al-Golani is dead! [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Good riddance. Should be added to the Nusra article if more sources report it. FunkMonk (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Press tv is not a reliable source. Period. Iranian state controlled, no fact checking, finge. Sopher99 (talk) 13:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It is more reliable than your FSA PR Twitter accounts at the very least. Anyhow, as I said, we can report it when more sources do so. Also, the link doesn't even mention a name. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

No such reliable sources says the commander has died. Also, who was the "commander"? Did they really mentioned the name Abu al-Golani? Myronbeg (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You can silence me, but you cannot silence the truth. One day this article will be balanced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is balanced. All statements in the article are backed up by sources that are reliable and due weight. I see nothing "unbalanced" other then the debate over whether or not Kurds belong in a third column or whether the single isreali strike and other border clashes (Turkey, Lebanon) qualifies those countries to be in the infobox. Sopher99 (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You have Saud (al-Arabiya) on here. I will say no more. I wish you the best of luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Remember, according to Sopher the mind-reader, state owned news corps can only be biased if they are pro-government. FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
This is incorrect. First of all Al arabiya is not state-owned. It is owned by a company which has a saud family member running that company. This is not surprising, considering the house of saud has over 6000 members, and they own the most capital and businesses in Saudi arabia. Second of all no state-controlled media is reliable, especially for polemical issues such as this. If your that angry about the presence of Al arabiya on this article, I can casually replace them.Sopher99 (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
The al-Saud family is the state. FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The head of the royal family is the head of state. Moving on, you would be glad to know that now al arabiya is only used 3 times and al jazeera 5 times. Only 8 out of 372 sources are foreign conspiracy. Sopher99 (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The head of state, yes. The rest of the family runs everything else. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Read the front page, the template at the top even admits this article is unbalanced to some views (ie pro-Jihad stance). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 14:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Another user (either Funkmunk or Baboon43) put that there because of the debate over Kurds/other countries. Sopher99 (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Well then it inadvertently draws our attention to multiple neutrality issues on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.87.53 (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
This is balanced. The Globe and Mail is a pro-rebel newspaper and yet it reports the truth of how people view the conflict (primary ground reports from Aleppo)
"This wasn't what we revolted for, to replace one group of criminals with another" - so the truth of how people view the regime according to this report = regime is a group of criminals - i thought you liked the regime? make your mind upSayerslle (talk) 01:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
That's all you got from the article? Did you read the other parts? Your blind support for the rebels causes you to ignore the fact that half of Aleppans support Assad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.81.18 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 March 2013

FSA numbers are no more than 100,000

Your article claims 123,000

This is unlikely based on the number of divisions and groups

The number would be around 75,000 official FSA members which include Jabhat al Nusra and other allies as well as around 5,000 other members which are unofficial members, they are associates to the FSA.

This puts the number to around 80,000

86.26.230.122 (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you check to see if there are any RS claiming this number of 123,000 or of your estimate of 80,000 op? This would be helpful :). Also I have made an edit to Syrian Arab Army casualties as there are no RS provided to back up the current figure. MrDjango (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Having looked at it, there is no reference given for 123,000 personnel, what is going on here - original research in the infobox? MrDjango (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Yup. I've removed it.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

chemical weapons in the media today

I'm not familiar with the topic/page but there are a few articles[14][15][16] talking about chemical weapons if someone wants to incorporate them into the article. Regards, — -dainomite   19:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Already done. Sopher99 (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
coolbeans — -dainomite   21:04, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
There is no evidence that chemical weapons were used. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X93ZHWta6Ow

Rebels gassing rabbits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.85.174 (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Fake video. The same uploader uploaded "videos" of fake videos purporting to show USA government soldiers committing the newton shooting massacre and causing tsunaminis with weather devices Sopher99 (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Syrian Armed forced got 300k of members no 110k lol

The active military personal of Syria is 300k no 110k is too small force just check here what about from the others 200k ? Just see here http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=Syria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.203.128.147 (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

But, but, but thee defections! But, but thee desertions. Dont cha know? Most of the Syrian Army has defekted to the opposition, and now the FSA has more support than the regime! Just read this article:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/syria-live/aleppo-activist-edward-dark-people-here-dont-like-the-regime-but-they-hate-the-rebels-even-more/article9816335/

The very title of your article would imply otherwise. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Well if I see clearly its says FSA has around 100 000 men that still leaves the army more then 200 000 men while it is said that hey have 110 000 so that still leaves a gap of 90 000. I think that the syrian army has more than 150 000 men in march 2013 with all losses becouse there is confirmed that they have at least 10 divisions on the ground each with manpower around 15 000 + the shabiha number is too low becouse the are composed by forces loyal to Assad and i think that they are more then 10 000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.252.95 (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Image showing front lines

I have created an image similar to this image for Libya. How can this fit in to the article?—SPESH531Other 02:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I rather you not. The map is very very misleading because most of that red and green territory is uninhabitable desert. And small rebel and goverment controlled villages of only a few thousand people are generally not put on the template map, meaning the map is very wrong. Don't put any red or green shading. Sopher99 (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

If anything, how would just "greying" the desert be? Just make uninhabited areas off colored?—SPESH531Other 02:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps this map from the NYT can help? Anyways, updating maps for the Syria conflict is difficult, due to lack of reporting and the asymmetrical nature of the conflict. A map showing front lines is pre-mature at this point. However, as the rebels gain ground, and the war becomes more conventional, such a map might work well.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Map gone :( Anyway, that makes sense. I know I did it for Libya, and people started editing that when the rebels were starting to advance on the Gulf of Sidra, so that is what it might take, I know the far south of the country is unknown, it was my guess, so I know that is wrong. —SPESH531Other 15:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The map is not gone. It is still present in the article. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.180.25 (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 Done - Alhanuty switched the map today for some unknown reason. I've switched it back.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I did not mean that map, I meant the website link you said.—SPESH531Other 01:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Image showing front lines

I have created an image similar to this image for Libya. How can this fit in to the article?—SPESH531Other 02:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I rather you not. The map is very very misleading because most of that red and green territory is uninhabitable desert. And small rebel and goverment controlled villages of only a few thousand people are generally not put on the template map, meaning the map is very wrong. Don't put any red or green shading. Sopher99 (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

If anything, how would just "greying" the desert be? Just make uninhabited areas off colored?—SPESH531Other 02:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps this map from the NYT can help? Anyways, updating maps for the Syria conflict is difficult, due to lack of reporting and the asymmetrical nature of the conflict. A map showing front lines is pre-mature at this point. However, as the rebels gain ground, and the war becomes more conventional, such a map might work well.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Map gone :( Anyway, that makes sense. I know I did it for Libya, and people started editing that when the rebels were starting to advance on the Gulf of Sidra, so that is what it might take, I know the far south of the country is unknown, it was my guess, so I know that is wrong. —SPESH531Other 15:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The map is not gone. It is still present in the article. It should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.180.25 (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 Done - Alhanuty switched the map today for some unknown reason. I've switched it back.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
I did not mean that map, I meant the website link you said.—SPESH531Other 01:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Daraa

I think we need to mak an article called the daraa offensive,due to the heavy fighting and advance of rebel forces in daraa province Alhanuty (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This talk belongs on the Daraa clashes page. But yes, a page like that should be made by now. Sopher99 (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Detailed Army size by location available

The Reuters claimed 110,000 number is groundless and has no sources within the IISS database. http://www.iiss.org/, So I dont know where and how Reuters got that number from.

The Syrian Army has 185,000 soldiers http://www.debka.com/article/22746/Massed-Israeli-border-forces-Air-Patrols-Buzzing-Syria-and-Hizballah http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/syria/index.html as of feb 2013 fighting in the civil war. Plus 20,000 reserves on hold near the Alawite mountain region which puts the total to 205,000 soldiers

This is excluding any militias, or outside forces, it also does not include the 50,000 localized Iranian backed army, neither is their any evidence that such army even exist.

Army size by regions for February 2013:

Rif Dimash 35,000 soldiers // Homs 30,000 soldiers // Aleppo 25,000 soldiers // Idlib 18,000 soldiers // Daraa 9,000 soldiers // Hama 20,000 soldiers // Damascus 25,000 soldiers // Deir ez-Zor 0-N/A soldiers // Latakia 4,000 soldiers // Ar-Raqqah 2,000 soldiers // Al-Hasakah 0-N/A // Quneitra 6,000 soldiers // Tartus 2,500 soldiers // As-Suwayda 1,000 soldiers // Total 177,500

estimated total 177,500 positions out of the claimed 185,000 mobilised troops http://www.debka.com/article/22746/Massed-Israeli-border-forces-Air-Patrols-Buzzing-Syria-and-Hizballah http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/syria/index.html

It is hard to tell how many troops are engaged in battle

PLEASE CHANGE NUMBER OF SAA TROOPS TO 185,000 as of February 2013

ALSO rebel causalities are much higher, while they claim most of their fighters as civilians evn though they died fighting, the are still fighters and no protesters

86.26.230.122 (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Changed the template. This page is fully protected. RudolfRed (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Not done: Sorry, but you need to be more precise about what you want to be changed. You need to say exactly where you want the text in the article, and preferably you should provide the exact wikitext that you want to be inserted. Also, you need to make sure that there is a consensus to make the changes you are requesting before you use the {{edit protected}} template. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

More Israeli attacks inside Syria

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/03/24/uk-syria-israel-idUKBRE92N06220130324

Yet more Israeli involvement, this time border troops clash with combatants in the Golan Heights.MrDjango (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And the source clearly associates it with the Syrian civil war: "in a further spillover of the Syrian civil war along a tense front". I'm just dying to see how Sopher and Trilionaire explain away this one. Something to do with numbers? Twitter? FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
You just don't get it do you? This is just another border clash. We don't include Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq as combatants in the infobox simply because of a few minor border clashes.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Israel has now been involved in more "border clashes" than Jordan and Turkey together (at least four or five by now). And non-government actors from Iraq and Lebanon obviously don't count. And yes "I get it", we can not show Israeli/insurgent association by any circumstance, since it would be bad PR for the supposedly righteous rebels. Now the Israelis are even treating wounded Syrian men (most likely insurgents):[17] The humanity. While Palestinians are dying at Israeli checkpoints on the way to hospitals. Why the double standards? FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Because israel probably has a secret alliance with Syria. Why do you think Syria allowed Israel to bomb it with warplanes twice, including once for 6 hours in Deir Ezzor? Why do you think Assad did not recognize the state of Palestine until 2011? Why do you think Assad never tried to take back the Golan? Why do you think assad never gave the Palestinians humanitarian aid, and instead onlyfunded hamas? Syria gets security from Israel and in return Israel gets stability from Syria, however Syria has successfully fooled Iran. Sopher99 (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Lol. Maybe because Syria knew their airforce would be completely destroyed if they retaliated? State actors have more to lose than non-state actors, but whatever, you're obviously grasping at straws. Why do you think the US now supports the People's Mujahedin of Iran, and don't directly attack Iran? Is it because of a "secret alliance"? Lulz. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Why is it that I can't site a single anti-Israeli thing this assad did except for anti-Israel rhetoric? Sopher99 (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
If you don't consider funding and arming anti-Israeli groups as "anti-Israeli", I guess you don't think Turkey is now "anti-Assad"? Are you kidding? FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
And no, Turkey fired mortars into syria 5 or 6 times, and killed over a dozens soldiers. So no, Israel does not exceed Turkey in border clashes. Sopher99 (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Turkey has attacked Syria just as many times as Israel, so you don't have a case. By your logic, Syria would have to attack Turkey in retaliation, yet they haven't done so. Does this mean there's a "secret alliance"? Sheesh. And remember, you should make more indents than me if you want to reply to my comments, otherwise we get annoying zigzagging comments. FunkMonk (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, its probably all Assad's idea! Ingenious! And when the Little Men from Mars arrive to take over, he'll have all the advantage he needs to take Aleppo...
Please do post as many of your personal "theories" as you can. You should demonstrate more often the unfathomable depths of your bias; its very obvious at this point that I was correct in estimating you'd simply never agree to adding Israel - regardless of the situation on the ground, and even so would try to sideline it as much as you could for the sake of the rebels (whom you're only here support). A poster-man for rebel propaganda.. which unfortunately couldn't convince anyone who isn't a barely-educated Syrian peasant.
What interests us on this project, however, is sourced military involvement in the conflict. Months now it has been significant enough for inclusion, but this is really the drop that spilled the glass. I feel the "reign of terror" of partisan POV-pushers such as yourself needs to be put an end to one way or the other. I will enter Israel into the appropriate place per guidelines at Template:Infobox military conflict, accompanied with more than enough sources. Since no form of DR has garnered a response fro months now, if you, Sopher99, wish to edit-war over this until we're both blocked - I'm game. -- Director (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
it really doesnt matter who's side israel is on but they did attack syria and that should be noted unless the airstrike on syria was before the civil war therefore israel in the infobox is justified Baboon43 (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2013
Indeed. In fact, the Syrian government and Israel are legally in a state of war. The air strikes (and all incidents in question) did not take place before this conflict.
The matter has been discussed to the point of profound tedium. Several DR attempts garnered no response. For months now WP:CONSENSUS has been misquoted as an excuse to exclude sourced additions out of POV political preference. "Consensus is required, citations don't matter" [18]. -- Director (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Now now Direktor, big talk about green men from mars when you are the one who believes "mainstream" media is conspiring against Syria. And the attack on Syria I was referring to was the Kubair nuclear power facility in Deir Ezzor in 2006. Your slander of our points as "POV" is nonsense. Everything I and the other editors who happen to be against your position have been saying is entirely with the scope of both the wikipedia guidelines and general reason. Sopher99 (talk) 18:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
In regard to my "theories and speculations" they were all direct responses to Funkmunks assertions. Please distinguish between my casual response to another human editor's political concerns and my contributions to the debate at hand. Sopher99 (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Ha. Even though I do believe the media in general are not 100% unbiased in their coverage of this conflict - I'm not the one advocating the exclusion of any sources, you are. It is precisely "mainstream" sources that have been used to cite additions in question. As for POV - you "happen to be against" any position which could be perceived as portraying the rebels in even a slightly more negative light. As for your "casual responses to other humans", they come directly from SNC-published war propaganda. -- Director (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
This issue is not whether the israeli strike happened its whether israel belongs in the infobox. I don't follow the SNC news. Israel's strike on Syria in 2006 is public knowledge, as is everything else I just recently said. Sopher99 (talk) 18:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, if "the battle isn't going your way, switch the battlefield". I see Turkey has been quietly "swept aside" as a participant, in spite of its military involvement on the border - and I assume it was precisely because of the uncomfortable parallel with Israel. According to the relevant template guidelines, however, both should be included based on the involvement of their military forces, as "countries whose forces took part in the conflict". There is nothing more to discuss or add to the reams of text already written on this. -- Director (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
If your wondering why Turkey is not trending in the military zone its because the Turkish border has been completely secured by rebels and Kurds. Now whose the conspiracy theorist? There forces have not took part in this civil war, ie this conflict. The scope defined repeatedly by everyday reliable sources simply does not include them. Sopher99 (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Bull. This is not a news site and the infobox does not depict the current state of affairs. Turkey is a participant by virtue of its previous military involvement in this conflict. -- Director (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Thats what you call Pov pushing. Turkey is not a participant because it doesn't participate in the civil war. Saying that one incident transforms another is utter speculation. Sopher99 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Again, that's not for you to define. Please keep your opinions to yourself and follow policy and guidelines. Across this project, this infobox template uses the same criteria for inclusion - those defined in its guide. Not "User:Sopher99". -- Director (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey, someone on Twitter told Sopher that Iran, Syria and Hezbollah are only posing against Israel to cover up the secret Shia-Jewish alliance. I've actually heard Muslim Brotherhood types make this claim to my face. And it was hard not to laugh. FunkMonk (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's not hard to see where that might come from. Aside from Hizbullah, the Axis of Resistance is built on empty rhetoric. Israel was quite comfortable with having the declawed, senile housecat that was the pre-war Assad state on their doorstep. Bibbi and Bashar were even negotiating themselves a nice peace deal when all hell broke loose. While a "Shi'a-Jewish alliance" is certainly laughable, it's about as funny as diehard Ba'athis who have deluded themselves into thinking that Assad is some great warrior and leader against The Great Zionist Threat as opposed to a lily-livered bootlicker. Four decades of occupation of most of Quneitra, and what did the Syrian state do? Oh, that's right. Allow the Israelis to violate their airspace and bomb them. So much for "resistance". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with DIREKTOR, while disagree with the edit-warring from both parties. And make no mistake, you can cry 3rr and edit war but you are just as guilty Sopher of violating policy in the name of lack of consensus. Israel and Turkey should be listed as a combatants due to the militant nature of their involvement in the conflict - 4twenty42o (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
They are not combats as they are not actively engaging in combat with Syria. Neither side describes themselves as in a state of fighting either. Border incidents are incidents. Sopher99 (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
as stated previously the info box is for military involvement and israel has been involved so i dont see what the deal is here. Baboon43 (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Military involvement in the Syrian civil war. Tunisia and Libya occasionaly attacked eahcother during ther libuan civil war. world war 1 Germans attacked Russia during the russian civil war. There are no sources which define the Syrian civil war as having Israel Lebanon Jordan turkey ect as a member. Sopher99 (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
so why is turkey included in the info box? if turkey is involved then israel is involved. Baboon43 (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The big deal is that Israel, being hated in Syria, must not be associated with the rebels. Those here just to support the rebels must, therefore, avoid its inclusion at all costs and in spite of all sources.
Notice "including border clashes". Turkey is in the infobox due to its supply of armaments to the rebels. Sopher99 (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
if iran hezbollah are in the infobox then israel usa are active it doesnt take rocket science to figure that out..plus there's sources to confirm that israel has indeed played a very sneaky role in the conflict. Baboon43 (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
You must be new around here. Iran, Hezbollah and the West have been discussed extensively a few months ago. Go search the archives.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
@Sopher99. A fine POV device if I ever saw one. "Border clashes" are military involvement by definition. Turkey, just as Israel, should be brought out of the "Supported by:" box as a "country whose forces took part in the conflict"; with a note in brackets of course "(border clashes)". -- Director (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I did not put that line in there. Turkey Saudi and Qatar are there because they provide armaments. If you want me to remove that "including border clashes" line, I will. Sopher99 (talk) 18:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
What? Where did I say that? The point is that "countries whose forces took part in the conflict" need to be listed - and plainly, outside of any silly collapsible boxes. If their involvement consisted of border clashes, then add a useful note like that. -- Director (talk) 18:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
sopher your recent addition blurs the lines..it puts israel on par with lebanon & turkey when none of these countries participated in airstrikes on syria. Baboon43 (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Then how did Turkey kill 12 soldiers? Besides syria shot down a turkish warplane and bombed lebanon. Thats the problem anyway, putting Israel on par with the members of this conflict. Sopher99 (talk) 19:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Retaliating to stray (or purposeful) fire from inside syria does not make them combatants any more than Turkey, Iraq, or Lebanon are combatants, and they have all responded to fire from within syria on both sides. They are related incidents, but that does not mean they are full fledged combatants in the war. Jeancey (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

agreeing with jeancey - these attacks are reported as ' a spillover of the syrian civil war' - REUTERS - thats what they are - you want to start an article on 'spillovers of the Syrian Civil WAr ' - this is about the Syrian Civil war - the reuters report said Israel didnt know who was responsible , rebels or regime, but they respondedSayerslle (talk) 19:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Also, Director, if you put Supporting the SNC under the main combatants area, then Malta will need to be added, as they recently announced that they consider the SNC the sole legal representatives of syria, which is supporting the SNC. Jeancey (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
israel attacked syria it wasnt just a spillover or stray bullets etc..israel basically declared war on syria but syria didnt respond because they had bigger fish to fry. as this source clearly shows [19] Baboon43 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The most recent incident was a response to fire from within syria. By your logic, the US is currently at war with Yemen, Pakistan, Afganistan, Iraq, and half a dozen other countries because it is conducting strikes in those nations. This isn't the case. A single incident, which was not followed by a declaration of war, or any other combat does not mean that israel declared war on syria. Besides, the Israeli government never acknowledged the incident, and, if I recall correctly, the Rebels took credit for it, saying it was a ground based attack, not an air strike. Jeancey (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Jeancey. First of all air strikes and tank forays are not artillery retaliation. Secondly, lets not mince words: what are "full fledged combatants"? The only objective definition we have is the one stated in the template guidelines and being employed in practically every infobox of this type throughout the project - military involvement. They have only been involved in border clashes, true, and the infobox makes that very clear - but they have been involved.
@Sayerslle. What do you find ambiguous about "Israel steps into Syria conflict" (LA Times)? Or "Israel drawn into Syria conflict" (NBC)? Or "Israel enters the Syrian war", etc.. As for the Malta nonsense - there I wonder what you find ambiguous about the criteria being military conflict? -- Director (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
They have no significant forces inside syria, thus they are not full fledged combatants. We have a supported by section in the infobox. That should suffice. Until they send troops into syria, they should not be considered combatants. Jeancey (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
That's not the criteria, its just something invented right here. They don't need to have forces in Syria right now - this isn't a news site, and what is the objective definition of "significant forces"? You are aware that the Golan is legally a Syrian territory and that Israel and Syria have been de iure at war for decades? Again, here are the sources:
etc. What is there to discuss here?
@Sayerslle. There's no need for a dividing line between Turkey and the SNC, the two are not disassociated. And mind you - you're showing an alliance between Israel, Turkey and the Lebanon. -- Director (talk) 19:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
They attacked what they believed to be a weapons shipment to a group they are already in a conflict with. All of the mention of being drawn into the conflict is speculation on the part of the authors of those articles, not on actual reliable sources. All this strike said to me was a continuation of their conflict with Hezbollah, not indications them fighting against assad. At least three of the articles you linked also have quotes from experts on the subject refuting the assumption that Israel is stepping in on the side of the rebels. Jeancey (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
These "authors" are the reliable sources. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not what you personally think. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I guess what I was trying to point out is that the assumption that israel is now a part of the conflict didn't continue past the first sentence, and was, in several of the articles, actually disputed by quotes given later on. The speculation is on the part of the reader, not the author. Jeancey (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
so they can attack assad and disrupt his weapons shipment and say that it was actually an attack on "hezbollah"..sorry that doesnt excuse the fact it was an attack on syria regardless of what "they say" was the motive.[20] Baboon43 (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
"On the part of" means what exactly? The titles speak for themselves, this is hardly interpretation by "the reader". The amount of tap-dancig to get around the issue here is getting ridiculous. Israel is pro-insurgent. Get over it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
The title does not dictate the content. Jeancey noted that some of the sources actually refute the idea Sopher99 (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Jeancey. I'm not getting into this. Are you seriously suggesting reputable sources be dismissed based on a personal assessment by yourself? Even if the above were true - the Hezbollah are also listed on this article as combatants in this conflict.
The Syrian government denies that the convoy to Hezbollah was the (only) target. It is not up to us to decide who's right or post Israeli military press statements as fact - that is the "speculation" here. Its up to secondary sources to do that. Mind that interpreting primary sources such as military press statements is OR. -- Director (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
That is not what I am suggesting at all. The Israeli military DIDN'T comment on this. This is a direct quote from one of the articles you linked above "Other analysts disagreed that Israel was intending to undermine Assad, especially since any successor to the Syrian leader could prove to be even more hostile. Still, the Syria strike may signal a new willingness by Israel to intervene in the region's problems." The article wasn't actually saying that israel is pro-rebel. It was saying that SOME analysts are saying it is, and other analysts are saying it is not. What I was trying to point out is that the title of the articles wasn't accurately portraying the actual information in those articles. Also, the syrian government says one thing, the US and other western countries say another, and the articles specifically point out that, because Syria is closed to journalists, it is impossible to verify EITHER side's claims. We cannot pick and choose which sides claims we use. Also, the assumption that Israel attacked the convoy in its current conflict with hezbollah was not a idea I came up with. I read that in several of the articles you listed. I'm not stated my opinions at all here, I am merely using the opinions of the articles. Jeancey (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
My bad. The Isrealis didn't bother; it was US officials that "declared" the air strikes were against Hezbollah. No difference with regard to my argument: no original interpretations of such statements should be posted. Also as I said, the Hezbollah are also combatants here. Can we not ignore that?
And please don't misrepresent the refs. Noone is saying Israel is "pro-rebel", and neither are the sources - the depiction in the infobox also makes no such insinuation. What the sources ARE saying is that Israel has been militarily involved in the conflict. That's enough for inclusion in this template - just like in every other conflict article on this project. Then, in what should have been the final nail in the coffin of any discussion here, the sources explicitly interpret and describe it as Israel's entry into this conflict. That's the supposed "speculation" you're referring to, actually its synth in a secondary source. Analysts are arguing whether Israel's intention was to undermine Assad, not whether they did or did not attack Assad. -- Director (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, another quote. "In addition to taking out weapons that could be used by Hezbollah against Israeli warplanes in a future conflict, Israel sent what amounted to a message of warning to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Iran against attempting to transfer any chemical or biological weapons to Hezbollah". The articles are making the point that the israeli's were trying to prevent weapons from being used by Hezbollah against them. That is all the articles are saying. The titles say they have become involved in the conflict in syria, but the main body of the articles indicate that they are involved in a conflict with Hezbollah, and that conflict happened to have an incident within syria. The articles do not actually state that israel was attacking the regime itself, but rather the weapon transfer from the regime to Hezbollah. This is a separate conflict between israel and hezbollah, with hezbollah being supported by syria, and not part of the conflict within syria. That's what the majority of the articles are actually saying, if you read them entirely, and not just the titles. Jeancey (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

@Direktor - Noone is saying Israel is "pro-rebel", and neither are the sources "- did you miss this - "Israel is pro-insurgent. Get over it. FunkMonk " i dont think the RS support this assertion but there you are .Sayerslle (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I am going to take a break and go eat some food. I would just like to mention that I am not actually supporting either of the sides in this argument, and that my preferred display of the information is different from both of the suggested options. Also, I think that several editors (on both sides) have started to make comments of a personal nature, rather than trying to discuss the actual information. I would suggest that everyone take a hour break or so, and try to come back with a clear head. The article is protected, so neither side can change the information while the other side is taking a break. Let's just calm down and come back refreshed and clear headed. :) Jeancey (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Having read through this morass and had a good laugh at some of the statements made, one by jeancey in particular, I have to say that DIREKTOR is entirely correct there and I support inclusion of Israel into the infobox. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Jeancey's previous post. So you're saying Israeli attacks on the Syrian army were with not with the thought of undermining the Syrian army, but rather with the purpose of weakening an ally of the Syrian army in this conflict :). That's the first level on which the argument is flawed.
But lets assume we live in a parallel universe where the Hezbollah are not the allies of the Syrian government in this conflict. Are we supposed to say "well, its the thought that counts"? :) They did bomb the Syrian military, but you know they didn't really mean to weaken them... its all about the other guys. We should definitely just discount all the sources that describe the bombings as part of the Syrian civil war??
Again: military involvement is the criteria for inclusion here. That's it. The intention or "thought" behind the military involvement is irrelevant with regard to entry into the infobox. That's the second level of flaw. -- Director (talk) 20:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
One of the things Jeancey is saying is that the strikes are being defined by officials as precisely Hezbollah-Israeli conflict, not a Syrian conflict. For example, the Turkish bombings of PKK in Iraq does not constitute Turkey as a belligerent in the Iraq war. Sopher99 (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
PKK hardly played any role in that war. A better analogy would had been if Israel had attacked Saddam's forces. In that case, Israel would be in the Iraq war infobox by now. Nice try. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
(Reuters) - Israel said it fired into Syria on Sunday and destroyed a machinegun position in the Golan Heights from where shots had been fired at Israeli soldiers in a further spillover of the Syrian civil war along a tense front.

It was not immediately clear whether Israel held Syrian troops or rebels responsible " this is the tenor of all the reports - direktor seems to say 'military involvement at time of syrian civil war' - is synonomous with 'military involvement in syrian civil war' - it is your side direktor that is imposing interpretation of motives imo. Sayerslle (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Sayerslle you still deny that israel attacked syria you say above that it was rebels instead. if the article is titled civil war then shouldnt it focus on what happens during the civil war? Baboon43 (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Funny that he ignores all the other reliable sources that make the direct connection with the civil war. But well, at least we now know that this bunch will go all the way to spin bad news about their pet-rebels in a positive way, they're not even concerned about exposing their POV any more. FunkMonk (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes i noticed that. Editors previously were worried about it. I had commented that there's nothing wrong with expressing POV in a discussion as long as it does not affect the article so they are taking my advice. Baboon43 (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

@Sayerslle, you keep bringing this around in circles. Its not "military involvement at time of syrian civil war", its military conflict with the a faction in the Syrian civil war. And yes. That is the criteria. Even if we were to take everything you guys say as fact, then the Israelis attacked one faction in a civil war to weaken another (its ally). Even if this really were supposedly "part of some other conflict" (and its not - the attack was on the Syrian military not Hezbollah), it would still have to be listed here as well. These are not mutually exclusive, or-or categories. Yes, the involvement would obviously also have to take place "at time", but that's completely secondary and immaterial.

Re your above comment on FunkMonk's statements, it doesn't matter whether FunkMonk thinks Israel is "pro-rebel" - the point is he doesn't advocate making changes that would indicate that. A dividing line is to be in place. -- Director (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Long story short there are no sources which define the civil war as having Israel as a military component. Sure there are four or five articles (out of thousands) with titles implying it but, none of those articles given any credence, or even state that israel is a combatant in this conflict, some of those articles provide information which refutes the "israel is combatant argument". There is nothing which mandates an air strike or a border clash to be full fledged war - particularly if its only an occasional occurrence. Sopher99 (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Um.. how can you even seriously write stuff like that? :) "Long story short" - you're grasping for straws, and the sources explicitly state Israel has entered this conflict. The very idea that they somehow "don't" is laughable POV-pushing that clearly demonstrates the futility of trying to reason here in any way. -- Director (talk) 00:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Very clever of you using Haraatz and Financial time articles which cannot be viewed by the average viewers. But that aside the WSJ does not say anywhere that israel is part of the conflict, the telegraph only says "israel considering"., and heres the direct quote from the LA times " With the attack in Syria, Israel took its first overt military step into the "Arab Spring" unrest that has destabilized its neighbors and left Israelis feeling more vulnerable than they have in decades." The only article thus is the NBC. One source does not override every other source in the world. Whose grasping for straws again? Sopher99 (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm a genius like that. *facepalm* Sopher, I don't know where you're from - but I can view Haaretz perfectly fine. I didn't even log in or anything. Same goes for FT... -- Director (talk) 01:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syrian_civil_war/Archive_21&oldid=1136230178"