This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
I would like to note that from now on, Syrian civil war topic articles are coming under community restrictions based on 1RR rule, as a result of motion from July 2013 [1] and a consequent WP:AN discussion over imposing sanctions [2] on articles of the Syrian civil war topic. Greyshark09 ( talk) 06:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
For Sopher, no source is reliable unless it is pro-Islamist. He is nearly a one man propaganda team. He works this article tirelessly trying to get his discourse out as the main narrative on this conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.188.161 ( talk) 20:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The subject of this article is a proper noun and should be moved to Syrian Civil War. [3] I can not imagine this as controversial, yet it is move protected so I posted the request here. Am I missing something here?— John Cline ( talk) 23:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Ariha under the government control by sep/03/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syria-truth ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, according to reporter Yahya Ababneh, who talked with rebels in Ghouta, chemical weapons was given to them by Saudi's guys. But rebels didn't know how to use them - so weapons exploaded by mistake.
[4]
date=29 August 2013
Hi, I'm not a regular in this article but I encountered this information that may be of current relevance - I didn't find discussion of it in a search of the archives and I'll leave it to regulars to decide whether to include.
U.S. 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad's regime' (Daily Mail, Jan. 29 2013)
US 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria, blame it on Assad govt': Report (ANI, Jan 30, 2013)
Interesting view on deletion of the original Daily Mail article --
Dailycare (
talk)
18:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Here is proof that this mail is a forgery: [5]. noclador ( talk) 05:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Just read the 'chemical' section. Its non POV, biased and not encyclopedic. Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 02:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
On 21 August, Syrian activists reported that Assad regime forces struck Jobar, Zamalka, 'Ain Tirma, and Hazzah in the Eastern Ghouta region with chemical weapons. At least 635 people were killed in
a nerve gas attack. Unverified videos uploaded showed the victims, many of who were convulsing, as well as several dozen bodies lined up.
[1] <the death toll definitely needs to be updated, other than that we simply give a who, what, where and when. The videos were also a highlight in the media that day.>
Experts in chemical weapons stated that the footage showed signs that a nerve agent may have been used. [2] <backed up by a BBC source, experts - who exist - saw videos - which exist - and concluded it was most likely nerve agents - which exist.>
Early sources reported a figure of 213 in a poisonous gas attack. [3] The SNC chief said that the overall death toll stood at an estimated 1300, as only a fraction of the bodies could be collected and many died within their own homes. [4] <death tolls - all deadly attacks have death tolls.>
The Syrian government initially prevented United Nations investigators from reaching the sites of the attacks, [5] [6] despite their accommodations being only a few kilometers away. [7] <backed up by HRW and Reuters, Syrian government - initially - blocked access. Ghouta is only a few kilometers from where the UN inspectors were staying. Unless using the metric system instead of the imperial system counts as POV, I see nothing wrong here.>
On 25 August, the Syrian government agreed to allow UN investigators to visit the site of the attacks. [8] [9]<The syrian government allows them in>
The UN inspectors arrived to the site of the attacks, despite being fired upon by an unknown party while underway. UN officials say that inspectors have gathered "valuable" evidence. [10] < no blame attributed to the attack on the vehicle, UN statement says valuable evidence collected. Not seeing a problem unless you really want to strech it by saying "valuable" is an inappropriate point of view>
On 26 August the inspectors reached some sites, but after an hour and a half, were ordered by the Syrian government to return due to 'safety concerns', and the inspectors could not reach the six main sites. [11] <the events that took place on 26 August, Guardian source>
<The paragraph is fine, just needs to be updated> Sopher99 ( talk) 03:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The section looks fine to me. What's the problem? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 13:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Even I think it's fine and I am strongly against Islamist propaganda. However, we need to change the combatants box so that the Mujahideen section is changed to "foreign militants." Don't give one side the more honourable title "Mujahideen" and others the title "foreign militants." Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 ( talk) 15:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I've often pointed to the comically pronounced pro-rebel bias on this article. And the fact that Sopher99's efforts (i.e. numerous edit wars) are focused on keeping it as much in-line with islamist rebel propaganda as possible. Setting aside the fact that much of the world media sources not friendly to the Sunni insurgency are disregarded - even western media are being ignored when they have something to say that might reflect badly on the rebels. Just yesterday I heard on CNN that the insurgency is composed of separate movements, the largest of which is the Al-Nusra Front. Does the article reflect that? Or is it a poster for fairy-tale propaganda from the "Syrian National Coalition".. -- Director ( talk) 20:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This is the sort of thing that should be in there for balance. 'Russia releases key findings on chemical attack near Aleppo indicating similarity with rebel-made weapons'. http://rt.com/news/chemical-aleppo-findings-russia-417/.
Heres a teaser from it. 'the shell used in the incident “does not belong to the standard ammunition of the Syrian army and was crudely according to type and parameters of the rocket-propelled unguided missiles manufactured in the north of Syria by the so-called Bashair al-Nasr brigade”;
Oh there will be war, certain powers want it bad, but Im not going to be a sap and not see the bias and wrongness beforehand which is also evident in this article. I live in the West, Im white, have 2 degrees, so what? Well when I see bias in Wikipedia thats all Im saying. I also have views on how democracy has been subverted, I like Snowdens stand. Again so what. Bias is bias and its dangerous. Its feeding an illegal US strike. It will lead to loss of life in Syria. Why should an encyclopedia support it? Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 23:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
"Bias is Bias and its dangerous. its feeding an illegal US strike" I think this sums up the hypocrisy of the talking points around here. Sopher99 ( talk) 00:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Russia Today is not a reliable source for any claim that supports the Kremlin's view.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 06:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
FT, you clearly misunderstand WP:NOTFORUM. Kindly refrain from messing with posts you personally disagree with and/or are annoyed by. Also please try to keep your language civil ("rambling"). -- Director ( talk) 19:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Most sources describe the conflict as gradually having turned sectarian. Whats wrong with mentioning that? Futuretrillionaire removed that. Pass a Method talk 03:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
93.150.144.50 posted this comment on 28 June 2013 ( view all feedback).
This page needs a picture that shows all of the relations between the factions that are involved
(like for example, there can be a green line between the "syrian government" and "Hezbollah" to show that they're allies).
It would also be better to see an example of the art produced by the war.
Thanks.
Any thoughts?
I think neither of these ideas belong on this page. A graphic for the relations of the Syrian government during the war, should be under "Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war" or " International reactions to the Syrian civil war", this page is crowded and overly lengthy already. Also, Wikipedia is not an art gallery. At most there should be one representative piece of art, if it becomes famous, noteworthy or significant, or affects the course of the war, otherwise no, I do not believe it belongs here. Ottawakismet ( talk) 13:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The article should be consistent in which version of the group's name to use. Which one do we use? Persnonally, I prefer Al-Nusra Front because that's the name of the Wikipedia article for it.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 14:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Why don't we call it by its english name - we do so for the "national defense force" and Islamic state in Iraq and Syria. Sopher99 ( talk) 15:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
First and foremost, this is not an attack on Israel or POV pushing. I just noticed in reading through this setcion that the first paragraph which details almost all other humanitarian aid, involving thousands, is a small and more concise read than the seemingly overinflated paragraph that follows. The second paragraph seems to have a much greater level of detail on the Israeli effort than is warranted by the scope of the article. It's increidbly laudable that Israel is providing aid, I don't mean to take anything away from them or to downplay their effort. I just think we go into too much detail in comparison to the previous paragrah. If we can sum up all US and other sources of aid, which affect thousands or millions, in one paragraph, do we really need to spend a whole paragraph talking about how Israel provided aid to 100? It seems undue weight. Israel's effort is certianly not negligible, but it's certainly not of the same scope as everything else put together. I would recommend shortening that paragraph to one sentence, something like "Israel has provided medical aid to 100 people through special entry permits for critically wounded Syrians." Everything else is pretty much extraneous detail. If equal detail was put into USAID efforts, it would be a whole article. Much love for Israel, but let's keep it short and sweet? 204.65.34.29 ( talk) 22:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to go into edit war again with Sopher "Blame Assad!" 99, so I'm just pointing this out. Right in the lede we have a statement: "The conflict gradually took a more sectarian nature between Sunnis and Shia Alawites when the Syrian government began establishing Alawite militias to substitute defected soldiers."
This, of course, is just a part of the truth. Influx of Sunni extremists, funding of Sunni groups by Gulf states, spillover of sectarian conflict in Iraq and calling for jihad against Shi'a are the other aspects, not mentioned there.
Can someone edit that in some neutral way? Thanks. -- Emesik ( talk) 23:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I read and hear things about a projected peace conference in Geneva. Is anyone able to add a section on initiatives of that kind? -- Corbertholt ( talk) 08:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
does it really matter.it wont achieve anything. 70.28.7.229 ( talk) 09:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
However, experts say that hard-line Islamists make up only 8,000 of the 140,000-strong rebel force.
This statement is highly misleading.If not simply wrong.
First of all, the source article, which is the basis for this statement, says that 140,000 opposition fighters are FSA fighters.and that 8000 are islamists.
but the FSA itself is composed of Islamists (3rd paragraph).
second of all, just because one is not a hardline islamist, does not mean one is secular.one could believe in some form of Islamic democracy.
In short, it is a very misleading statement, and the extent to which the opposition is secular is at best unclear. 99.254.53.216 ( talk) 22:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Its not misleading. Hardline islamists are extremists. Only 8k are extremist.
Anti-war.com? Really? the pov is even in the name of this one. Sopher99 ( talk) 00:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Sopher99 really. Did anyone at all suggest Anti-war.com as a reference? No. Instead I said this, 'Try this for search ideas'..i.e. this info, 'Mike Rogers (R-MI), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee'. Sopher can you try to follow the lines of reasoning because when you dont its disruptive. Thankyou. Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 00:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I think a statement like that is based on very little, "Experts" doesnt mean any kind of authentication imho. Is this conclustion based on a survey of attitudes of rebel fighters? LOL Neither the Syrian government nor the rebels have a definite list of who is fighting and who isnt. Ottawakismet ( talk) 13:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Ottawakismet I think you are correct no one knows how strong in number the hardline Islamists are. Its messy and the article could show that or say that rather than put up figures that are flawed Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 23:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I am willing to bet it's a majority. 99.254.53.216 ( talk) 00:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Do we really need to have that info in the lede? I'd say it's WP:UNDUE. US is just another country, not even involved directly in the conflict. -- Emesik ( talk) 15:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Why Hezbollah is called Foreign Militants in InfoBox but Mujahideen aren't called Foreign Militants?? even Anti-Assad new channel CNN reported that, Mujahideen are not Syrians they are Jihadist from different countries?? SpidErxD ( talk) 23:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Because Hezbollah and such are exclusively foreign. SIF and Nusra simply contain foreigners, but most aren't. Sopher99 ( talk) 23:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll tell you guys what - I'l replace all Al jazeera, Al arabiya, and if possible - all US media sources. Sopher99 ( talk) 00:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with SpidErxD . I would also like to ask you User:Sopher99 if you have any interest concerns, paid or unpaid that make you a non neutral editor. Are you too involved to be impartial? I ask this based on your edit history alone. And User:Sopher99 other people will be putting in other refs not from UK,US,Qatar,Israel. You need to understand that. Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 01:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Snatch. 'The Obama administration has also referred to its satellite and signals intelligence, as well as military communications, as proof that the regime was preparing to use poisonous gas just days before the alleged attack took place. Yet the administration has refused to let the public see the evidence allegedly connecting Assad to the crime - even though ample amounts of satellite imagery was released earlier by the US in order to demonstrate the consequences of the attacks'. http://rt.com/usa/white-house-syria-evidence-586/ Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 06:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Russia Today is not a reliable source listed by wikipedia, as it is operated by the russian government. Jacob102699 ( talk) 22:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course RT is reliable. News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. The NYT has disputed reliability when its opinions are used as facts, (see Edward Snowdon talk archives). Everything is disputed these days but facts are facts. This from Wikipedias protocols allows use of RT for facts. 'News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors'). I have to say that genuine query of sources is healthy. Political motives driving keeping out reliable sources in here are not. Its puerile and repugnant. Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 23:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/arts/television/18heym.html?_r=0
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/from-russia-with-news-1869324.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/18/russia-today-propaganda-ad-blitz
http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2010/07/russia_today_goes_mad
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/russian-backed-propaganda-networks-claim-obama-is-a-cia-agent/
Sopher99 ( talk) 11:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
See WP:NEWSORG. Also see RT (TV network) for information on RT's alleged bias and propaganda. Specifically, one thing that caught my eye was the calling the Boston Marathon bombings a gov conspiracy. If that is not propaganda idk what is. On WP:Newsources/Europe RT is not listed as one of the several reliable sources based out of Russia. Lastly, I recall RT being decided not reliable several times on this talk page in the last 2 and a half years. Jacob102699 ( talk) 22:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I see that earlier talk page consensus favored including a brief description of the 1949 CIA-backed coup in the background section of this article. I can't find a record in the talk archives of a later consensus to remove the material, and so I've restored it, in abridged form. Two sentences, giving background on the early struggles between democracy and dictatorship in Syria, are certainly useful to readers hoping to place the civil war in context. - Darouet ( talk) 16:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
he has no defect,they were nopthing more but rebel propaganda!!!!!deleted it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.151.241.195 ( talk) 11:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Syrian civil war → Syrian Arab Spring war – Protesters do not generally turn into an army without being one to begin with. There is no reason to suppose the demonstrators were not invaders, going from one country to the next to fight, like Alexander or like crusaders. The demonstrators could conceivably be the 250,000 lift in Iraq by U.S. President George H.W. Bush. Thus “civil war” is probably not what is going on there. 69.3.115.148 ( talk) 19:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes its a dirty corrupt war and no name I suspect will do it justice. Of course its way beyound a civil war. Its a geopolitical power play. I like 'The Syrian Conflict' for a name, as it leaves room for the host of back room, shadowy nasty interfering players as well. But I think we are stuck with this name because of the pernicious nomenclature in mainstream media and those who oppose any changes based on common sense. Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 22:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe that it actually is a civil war. I mean the definition of civil war is a war in which a country is fighting itself. Kydon Shadow ( talk) 17:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The only media channel that doesn't call this conflict a civil war is SANA and Press TV. All the others, including RT, calls it a civil war. The UN calls it like this as well, the Red Cross, etc. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current name.
Coltsfan (
talk)
00:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Is this article implying the rebel groups under mujahideen are jihadist or islamist, while the rest are not. 70.28.7.229 ( talk) 04:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Not really. It refers to the number of foreign islamists. There are other "indigenous" islamist groups mentioned in the infobox. However, it is good that you started as a topic, because the mujahideen number is slightly troublesome. The source on which the number of 10,000 is based (an article from the Times whose full access is restricted) mentions that "as many as 10,000 foreigners fighting to overthrow President Assad". However, because it is restricted it is unclear to what extent the number of 10,000 overlaps with the estimates for other groups in the infobox (e.g. al-Nusra). I hope somebody who does have access to the full article can answer if these matters are resolved in the rest of the article. Otherwise I will put an asterix at the mujahideen estimate with the remark "Number possibly overlaps with estimates for other groups." -- Tomvasseur ( talk) 10:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a key statement, and should it be ignored the UN's role is over, compromised. Snatch: 'It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”'.
continuing. 'My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal'. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-11/vladimir-putin-addresses-america-nyt-op-ed-calls-caution-syria. Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 01:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Words are wind. Coltsfan ( talk) 23:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Nasty development. Ref? BTW VQuakr Improvements to help reduce the POV noted in the article by several editors could include phrases along the lines of these from the links above. Russia believes, a US strike
and a strike would be counter to.
I think this edit should be reverted because there's no evidence that Turkey has offered lethal suport. Only evidence they offered land for its supply. Otherwise we will have to add Jordana nd a host of other countries to the list as well. Pass a Method talk 10:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
A large majority of us (active Wikipedia-editors) will probably agree that this article ‘ Syrian civil war’ is (much) too long. Downloading the article, or any operation on it, usually takes undesirably and unnecessary long times. I therefore fully support the message that was put on top of the article on 4 September 2013, saying: “This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and/or condensing it.” (For reasons I don’t understand, someone on 5 September shortened that message to: “This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably.”) I think all of us (active Wikipedians) who are interested in this article should make an effort to shorten it, by condensing one or several of its longer sections, by making more or better use of sub-articles.
This, I suppose, can or should even be done drasticly. Today, the article had length 272,036 bytes which at my homecomputer equals 42 full screens; perhaps we should strive towards a length of approximately 15 or 10 of such fullscreens (= 97,000 to 65,000 bytes), or even less, to make it comfortably manageable on most computers. But even without agreeing on some final goal, we perhaps can agree on a need for vigorously cutting back.
One first, robust step reducing the length of the article at once with 30% would be moving the entire section 2 (‘Uprising and civil war’, relating mostly chronological the events of the uprising and the civil war up till now) to a sub-article, called: ‘ Events in the Syrian uprising and civil war’. The summary in our main article ‘ Syrian civil war’ in section 2, apart from directing towards ‘Main article: Events in the Syrian uprising and civil war’, might at first run somewhat like: “A short summary of the uprising and war up until now can be found in the lead section of this article Syrian civil war”. Consecutively, that new sub-article ‘ Events in…’ can probably be improved, perhaps issuing into a (preliminary) lead section in that sub-article of say 300 words; leading up again to an improved summary of say approximately 100 words in section 2 of the main article (‘ Syrian civil war#Events’). Corriebertus ( talk) 10:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
97k bytes is extraordinarily short for an article with this magnitude of info. We should cut it back down to the 200k limit instead. Sopher99 ( talk) 15:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the article is too long and that the Events section is perhaps the major thing which makes it too long. It provides quite excessive blow-by-blow description of events in the war; what is needed is relatively brief summary of major events and of the key influences, turning points, ebb-and-flow of power etc. I do find that making subarticles helps with turning such excessive description into something briefer and more helpful without loss of information, because you end up making a lead section for the new subarticle that often works pretty well as a summary for use in the main article. My only concern in this instance is that we also have Timeline articles (day-by-day detail) and key event articles (eg Al-Qusayr offensive) and there is a risk of excessive duplication. But anyway, an Events article with a brief summary here is probably the best way to handle this. Podiaebba ( talk) 20:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Valgria was a small town, recently destroyed by a misdirected mortar strike. Around 450 of the 500-550 inhabitants are now deceased, many of which were women and children.
Kydon Shadow ( talk) 17:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
While obviously foreign involvement is very important in this conflict this section doesn't do well for the article. Besides that it lacks any references it doesn't offer information distinguitive enough for a separate section. I suggest looking at what parts from "Foreign Involvement" aren't reiterations of what has been written elsewhere & merge the rest either with "International reaction" or "Non-state parties in the conflict". I also suggest renaming "International Reaction" "Reaction from the international community", because then it is more clearly separated from the foreign non-state parties. -- Tomvasseur ( talk) 21:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Apparently the Kurdish National Council agreed to join forces with the Syrian National Council after the latter agreed to rename the Syrian Arab Republic by dropping the "Arab" part. As yet unclear whether this has actually changed things on the ground. Figured I'd leave it here and see what involved editors think should be done: [17] - Kudzu1 ( talk) 04:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Why was this reverted? How is "pro-government militias" a more inclusive and better term? Alawism is an off shoot of Shia Islam. The word Shia is commonly used to refer to followers of the Twelver branch, not offshoots of the denomination. Many don't even consider Alawites to be Muslims. Also, many militiamen are Christian, which clearly don't fit in the " Shia militia allies" category.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 07:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Mainstream Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, regarded them (Alawites) as ghulta, “exaggerators.” -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 15:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Calm down and clam up
|
---|
|
I strongly oppose the recent massive changes and selective removal of contents by User:FutureTrillionaire, and replacing them with POVed contents (e.g. "The Syrian government has been accused of conducting several chemical attacks, the most serious of them being the 2013 Ghouta attacks", as if only the Syrian govt has been accused of the attack, and only the government has been accused of chemical attacks). Since this is a sensitive article, I believe such changes are unacceptable without prior discussion. -- Z 11:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
What happened to the War in Syria.jpg image? The one that contains 8 different images which was used as a cover image by many of the articles in various languages. Thisissparta12345 ( talk) 11:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The last sentence of the introduction, and a large part of the body, emphasize chemical weapons use. This is a minor part of a much larger conflict and the overemphasis on it in this article is derived from US media and State Department rhetoric rather than balanced reporting of the conflict. At minimum the last sentence of the introductory paragraph should point out that over 40% [20] of the FSA's fighting force is Al Qaeda terrorists. Mustang19 ( talk) 22:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
A really telling comment - but is no one interested in debating it? 78.147.84.221 ( talk) 19:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Putin: Syria chemical attack is ‘rebels' provocation in hope of intervention’ There was no 50/50 split of opinion (at G20) on the notion of a military strike against the Syrian President Bashar Assad, Putin stressed refuting earlier assumptions.
Only Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia and France joined the US push for intervention, he said, adding that the UK Prime Minister’s position was not supported by his citizens.
Russia “will help Syria” in the event of a military strike, Putin stressed as he responded to a reporter’s question at the summit.
http://rt.com/news/putin-g20-syria-meeting-511/
No hysteria please, objectivity only. 21:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Nope, I am not " missing the point of neutrality"; and you're mixing things up! I have an issue with Putin not telling the full picture in his G-20 press conference. Also you only focus on the US not having full support of the G-20... 55% is still much more than the 35% Mr. Putin can muster. Also: if one includes the EU it is 60% to 35%, that is still an almost twice as strong majority support for the US position! (And NOT almost parity)! The point is not - as you claim one of neutrality or biased coverage - but one of deliberate mis-information by the President of Russia. noclador ( talk) 06:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand the thread of this argument, I think someone is trying to argue Russia has a credible position?! Isnt that prima facie obviously untrue? Russia is defending Assad in the face of evidence - Russia does not claim to have contradictory evidence, they have simply argued anyway, without evidence. Also, the list of who agrees with the USA is much longer then that - Australia is also condemning the syrian government use of chemical weapons.... Ottawakismet ( talk) 13:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
FT please refrain from misusing WP:NOTFORUM as you did above and in a previous thread. You have no consensus. Here is what was said to you in another thread even longer than this one by User:DIREKTOR. 'FT, you clearly misunderstand WP:NOTFORUM. Kindly refrain from messing with posts you personally disagree with and/or are annoyed by. Also please try to keep your language civil.
The point of the thread is that there is no hard evidence yet that Sarin? was deployed by Assad / Syria. This is not reflected in the article. Nor has there been a G20 joint statement stating there is hard evidence. Its all speculation right now. Even a UN report saying it was Sarin that was used, only identifies the chemical agent, not the group who fired it. Neutrality should reflect these facts not political maneuvering. Hopefully these issues will sort out soon. Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 23:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Another Day, Another Chemical Attack?
Apart from an unconfirmed YouTube Video, there is little hard evidence that the Syrian government gassed it's own people. For why would the Syrian government cross the "Red Line", and invite the US to bomb them? While Assad might be bad - he ain't mad. 78.147.84.221 ( talk) 20:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
"On 5 August, another chemical attack by the Syrian army was reported by the opposition, who documented the injured with video footage. The activists claim up to 400 people were effected by the attack in Adra and Houma of the Damascus suburbs." Unless confirmed, should not rebel claims be handled with care? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.115.90 ( talk) 11:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
In the Chemical Weapons Section there is an unverfied image of people in Ghouta "killed by a chemical attack" in August 2013. Should this site use unconfirmed images? 84.13.9.197 ( talk) 22:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I stumbled across this article which present an interesting chart of the Syrian Government, which might be of use for the editors. -- PLNR ( talk) 13:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Who is the Washington Institute for Near East Policy?
According to Wikipedia, WINEP "is a think tank based in Washington, D.C. focused on United States foreign policy in the Middle East. Established in 1985,the institute's mission statement states that it seeks to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in the Middle East and to promote the policies that secure them."
Just happened to "stumbled across" this? 2.96.115.90 ( talk) 11:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The Arab Spring ended in most of the Middle East over a year ago (two years ago? Time flies). Syrian conflict came late into the game and is much larger in scale than the rest of the Arab Spring combined. Can we really call it part of the Arab Spring? 96.54.76.154 ( talk) 05:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
In what sense has it ended in any country.they are all still suffering political turmoil. 108.175.224.13 ( talk) 10:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Historians will name it. At the moment we cannot know if it's a part of Arab Spring still or World War III already. Keep it as it is. -- Emesik ( talk) 20:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Part of the Arab Spring - or a US backed "Color Revolts"? 2.96.115.90 ( talk) 11:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Sopher99 just made this edit [27] supported by these two references, [28] [29].
While the lead sentence used to read "According to columnist Feras Abu-Helal and former Homs resident Hassan Ali..." it now reads, "According to Homs residents, witnesses, columnists and analysts, the sectarian undertone was purposefully spread by the Assad government in an attempt to form disunity and quarreling among the restive population." The only columnist is Abu-Helal, however, and the only witness I could find making that statement is Hassan Ali.
If there are more, can those please be demonstrated using quotes here, either from these sources or otherwise? The government relies on its minority Alawite base and I wouldn't be surprised if this were true. Nevertheless we shouldn't make an army of "residents, witnesses, columnists and analsysts" from two people: Abu-Helal and Ali. - Darouet ( talk) 16:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that huge mass of sectarian blabber belongs in the lede to begin with.
I think " In late 2012 UN report described the conflict as "overtly sectarian in nature", though both opposition and government forces denied that. " is enough for a lede, and everything else regarding sectarianism should be removed. Sopher99 ( talk) 17:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Removed. Sophers lead insert Statement is not supported by the refs and is weak. This is also far to flimsy and not lead material. one or two people does not make a lead sentence. Expand in body in a NPOV manner if more refs are found, at all. Use this as guideline WP:LEAD Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 00:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
As a long-term supporter of the Free Syrian Army, and someone who continues to use weak evidence to make a (sexed-up) case against the Syrian Government, should not Sopher work for the British Government? 2.96.115.90 ( talk) 11:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
I would like to note that from now on, Syrian civil war topic articles are coming under community restrictions based on 1RR rule, as a result of motion from July 2013 [1] and a consequent WP:AN discussion over imposing sanctions [2] on articles of the Syrian civil war topic. Greyshark09 ( talk) 06:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
For Sopher, no source is reliable unless it is pro-Islamist. He is nearly a one man propaganda team. He works this article tirelessly trying to get his discourse out as the main narrative on this conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.188.161 ( talk) 20:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The subject of this article is a proper noun and should be moved to Syrian Civil War. [3] I can not imagine this as controversial, yet it is move protected so I posted the request here. Am I missing something here?— John Cline ( talk) 23:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Ariha under the government control by sep/03/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syria-truth ( talk • contribs) 03:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, according to reporter Yahya Ababneh, who talked with rebels in Ghouta, chemical weapons was given to them by Saudi's guys. But rebels didn't know how to use them - so weapons exploaded by mistake.
[4]
date=29 August 2013
Hi, I'm not a regular in this article but I encountered this information that may be of current relevance - I didn't find discussion of it in a search of the archives and I'll leave it to regulars to decide whether to include.
U.S. 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad's regime' (Daily Mail, Jan. 29 2013)
US 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria, blame it on Assad govt': Report (ANI, Jan 30, 2013)
Interesting view on deletion of the original Daily Mail article --
Dailycare (
talk)
18:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Here is proof that this mail is a forgery: [5]. noclador ( talk) 05:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Just read the 'chemical' section. Its non POV, biased and not encyclopedic. Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 02:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
On 21 August, Syrian activists reported that Assad regime forces struck Jobar, Zamalka, 'Ain Tirma, and Hazzah in the Eastern Ghouta region with chemical weapons. At least 635 people were killed in
a nerve gas attack. Unverified videos uploaded showed the victims, many of who were convulsing, as well as several dozen bodies lined up.
[1] <the death toll definitely needs to be updated, other than that we simply give a who, what, where and when. The videos were also a highlight in the media that day.>
Experts in chemical weapons stated that the footage showed signs that a nerve agent may have been used. [2] <backed up by a BBC source, experts - who exist - saw videos - which exist - and concluded it was most likely nerve agents - which exist.>
Early sources reported a figure of 213 in a poisonous gas attack. [3] The SNC chief said that the overall death toll stood at an estimated 1300, as only a fraction of the bodies could be collected and many died within their own homes. [4] <death tolls - all deadly attacks have death tolls.>
The Syrian government initially prevented United Nations investigators from reaching the sites of the attacks, [5] [6] despite their accommodations being only a few kilometers away. [7] <backed up by HRW and Reuters, Syrian government - initially - blocked access. Ghouta is only a few kilometers from where the UN inspectors were staying. Unless using the metric system instead of the imperial system counts as POV, I see nothing wrong here.>
On 25 August, the Syrian government agreed to allow UN investigators to visit the site of the attacks. [8] [9]<The syrian government allows them in>
The UN inspectors arrived to the site of the attacks, despite being fired upon by an unknown party while underway. UN officials say that inspectors have gathered "valuable" evidence. [10] < no blame attributed to the attack on the vehicle, UN statement says valuable evidence collected. Not seeing a problem unless you really want to strech it by saying "valuable" is an inappropriate point of view>
On 26 August the inspectors reached some sites, but after an hour and a half, were ordered by the Syrian government to return due to 'safety concerns', and the inspectors could not reach the six main sites. [11] <the events that took place on 26 August, Guardian source>
<The paragraph is fine, just needs to be updated> Sopher99 ( talk) 03:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The section looks fine to me. What's the problem? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 13:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Even I think it's fine and I am strongly against Islamist propaganda. However, we need to change the combatants box so that the Mujahideen section is changed to "foreign militants." Don't give one side the more honourable title "Mujahideen" and others the title "foreign militants." Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 ( talk) 15:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I've often pointed to the comically pronounced pro-rebel bias on this article. And the fact that Sopher99's efforts (i.e. numerous edit wars) are focused on keeping it as much in-line with islamist rebel propaganda as possible. Setting aside the fact that much of the world media sources not friendly to the Sunni insurgency are disregarded - even western media are being ignored when they have something to say that might reflect badly on the rebels. Just yesterday I heard on CNN that the insurgency is composed of separate movements, the largest of which is the Al-Nusra Front. Does the article reflect that? Or is it a poster for fairy-tale propaganda from the "Syrian National Coalition".. -- Director ( talk) 20:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This is the sort of thing that should be in there for balance. 'Russia releases key findings on chemical attack near Aleppo indicating similarity with rebel-made weapons'. http://rt.com/news/chemical-aleppo-findings-russia-417/.
Heres a teaser from it. 'the shell used in the incident “does not belong to the standard ammunition of the Syrian army and was crudely according to type and parameters of the rocket-propelled unguided missiles manufactured in the north of Syria by the so-called Bashair al-Nasr brigade”;
Oh there will be war, certain powers want it bad, but Im not going to be a sap and not see the bias and wrongness beforehand which is also evident in this article. I live in the West, Im white, have 2 degrees, so what? Well when I see bias in Wikipedia thats all Im saying. I also have views on how democracy has been subverted, I like Snowdens stand. Again so what. Bias is bias and its dangerous. Its feeding an illegal US strike. It will lead to loss of life in Syria. Why should an encyclopedia support it? Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 23:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
"Bias is Bias and its dangerous. its feeding an illegal US strike" I think this sums up the hypocrisy of the talking points around here. Sopher99 ( talk) 00:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Russia Today is not a reliable source for any claim that supports the Kremlin's view.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 06:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
FT, you clearly misunderstand WP:NOTFORUM. Kindly refrain from messing with posts you personally disagree with and/or are annoyed by. Also please try to keep your language civil ("rambling"). -- Director ( talk) 19:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Most sources describe the conflict as gradually having turned sectarian. Whats wrong with mentioning that? Futuretrillionaire removed that. Pass a Method talk 03:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
93.150.144.50 posted this comment on 28 June 2013 ( view all feedback).
This page needs a picture that shows all of the relations between the factions that are involved
(like for example, there can be a green line between the "syrian government" and "Hezbollah" to show that they're allies).
It would also be better to see an example of the art produced by the war.
Thanks.
Any thoughts?
I think neither of these ideas belong on this page. A graphic for the relations of the Syrian government during the war, should be under "Foreign involvement in the Syrian civil war" or " International reactions to the Syrian civil war", this page is crowded and overly lengthy already. Also, Wikipedia is not an art gallery. At most there should be one representative piece of art, if it becomes famous, noteworthy or significant, or affects the course of the war, otherwise no, I do not believe it belongs here. Ottawakismet ( talk) 13:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
The article should be consistent in which version of the group's name to use. Which one do we use? Persnonally, I prefer Al-Nusra Front because that's the name of the Wikipedia article for it.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 14:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Why don't we call it by its english name - we do so for the "national defense force" and Islamic state in Iraq and Syria. Sopher99 ( talk) 15:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
First and foremost, this is not an attack on Israel or POV pushing. I just noticed in reading through this setcion that the first paragraph which details almost all other humanitarian aid, involving thousands, is a small and more concise read than the seemingly overinflated paragraph that follows. The second paragraph seems to have a much greater level of detail on the Israeli effort than is warranted by the scope of the article. It's increidbly laudable that Israel is providing aid, I don't mean to take anything away from them or to downplay their effort. I just think we go into too much detail in comparison to the previous paragrah. If we can sum up all US and other sources of aid, which affect thousands or millions, in one paragraph, do we really need to spend a whole paragraph talking about how Israel provided aid to 100? It seems undue weight. Israel's effort is certianly not negligible, but it's certainly not of the same scope as everything else put together. I would recommend shortening that paragraph to one sentence, something like "Israel has provided medical aid to 100 people through special entry permits for critically wounded Syrians." Everything else is pretty much extraneous detail. If equal detail was put into USAID efforts, it would be a whole article. Much love for Israel, but let's keep it short and sweet? 204.65.34.29 ( talk) 22:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to go into edit war again with Sopher "Blame Assad!" 99, so I'm just pointing this out. Right in the lede we have a statement: "The conflict gradually took a more sectarian nature between Sunnis and Shia Alawites when the Syrian government began establishing Alawite militias to substitute defected soldiers."
This, of course, is just a part of the truth. Influx of Sunni extremists, funding of Sunni groups by Gulf states, spillover of sectarian conflict in Iraq and calling for jihad against Shi'a are the other aspects, not mentioned there.
Can someone edit that in some neutral way? Thanks. -- Emesik ( talk) 23:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I read and hear things about a projected peace conference in Geneva. Is anyone able to add a section on initiatives of that kind? -- Corbertholt ( talk) 08:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
does it really matter.it wont achieve anything. 70.28.7.229 ( talk) 09:12, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
However, experts say that hard-line Islamists make up only 8,000 of the 140,000-strong rebel force.
This statement is highly misleading.If not simply wrong.
First of all, the source article, which is the basis for this statement, says that 140,000 opposition fighters are FSA fighters.and that 8000 are islamists.
but the FSA itself is composed of Islamists (3rd paragraph).
second of all, just because one is not a hardline islamist, does not mean one is secular.one could believe in some form of Islamic democracy.
In short, it is a very misleading statement, and the extent to which the opposition is secular is at best unclear. 99.254.53.216 ( talk) 22:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Its not misleading. Hardline islamists are extremists. Only 8k are extremist.
Anti-war.com? Really? the pov is even in the name of this one. Sopher99 ( talk) 00:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Sopher99 really. Did anyone at all suggest Anti-war.com as a reference? No. Instead I said this, 'Try this for search ideas'..i.e. this info, 'Mike Rogers (R-MI), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee'. Sopher can you try to follow the lines of reasoning because when you dont its disruptive. Thankyou. Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 00:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I think a statement like that is based on very little, "Experts" doesnt mean any kind of authentication imho. Is this conclustion based on a survey of attitudes of rebel fighters? LOL Neither the Syrian government nor the rebels have a definite list of who is fighting and who isnt. Ottawakismet ( talk) 13:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Ottawakismet I think you are correct no one knows how strong in number the hardline Islamists are. Its messy and the article could show that or say that rather than put up figures that are flawed Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 23:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I am willing to bet it's a majority. 99.254.53.216 ( talk) 00:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Do we really need to have that info in the lede? I'd say it's WP:UNDUE. US is just another country, not even involved directly in the conflict. -- Emesik ( talk) 15:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Why Hezbollah is called Foreign Militants in InfoBox but Mujahideen aren't called Foreign Militants?? even Anti-Assad new channel CNN reported that, Mujahideen are not Syrians they are Jihadist from different countries?? SpidErxD ( talk) 23:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Because Hezbollah and such are exclusively foreign. SIF and Nusra simply contain foreigners, but most aren't. Sopher99 ( talk) 23:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll tell you guys what - I'l replace all Al jazeera, Al arabiya, and if possible - all US media sources. Sopher99 ( talk) 00:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree with SpidErxD . I would also like to ask you User:Sopher99 if you have any interest concerns, paid or unpaid that make you a non neutral editor. Are you too involved to be impartial? I ask this based on your edit history alone. And User:Sopher99 other people will be putting in other refs not from UK,US,Qatar,Israel. You need to understand that. Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 01:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Snatch. 'The Obama administration has also referred to its satellite and signals intelligence, as well as military communications, as proof that the regime was preparing to use poisonous gas just days before the alleged attack took place. Yet the administration has refused to let the public see the evidence allegedly connecting Assad to the crime - even though ample amounts of satellite imagery was released earlier by the US in order to demonstrate the consequences of the attacks'. http://rt.com/usa/white-house-syria-evidence-586/ Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 06:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Russia Today is not a reliable source listed by wikipedia, as it is operated by the russian government. Jacob102699 ( talk) 22:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Of course RT is reliable. News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. The NYT has disputed reliability when its opinions are used as facts, (see Edward Snowdon talk archives). Everything is disputed these days but facts are facts. This from Wikipedias protocols allows use of RT for facts. 'News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors'). I have to say that genuine query of sources is healthy. Political motives driving keeping out reliable sources in here are not. Its puerile and repugnant. Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 23:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/arts/television/18heym.html?_r=0
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/from-russia-with-news-1869324.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/18/russia-today-propaganda-ad-blitz
http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2010/07/russia_today_goes_mad
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/russian-backed-propaganda-networks-claim-obama-is-a-cia-agent/
Sopher99 ( talk) 11:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
See WP:NEWSORG. Also see RT (TV network) for information on RT's alleged bias and propaganda. Specifically, one thing that caught my eye was the calling the Boston Marathon bombings a gov conspiracy. If that is not propaganda idk what is. On WP:Newsources/Europe RT is not listed as one of the several reliable sources based out of Russia. Lastly, I recall RT being decided not reliable several times on this talk page in the last 2 and a half years. Jacob102699 ( talk) 22:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I see that earlier talk page consensus favored including a brief description of the 1949 CIA-backed coup in the background section of this article. I can't find a record in the talk archives of a later consensus to remove the material, and so I've restored it, in abridged form. Two sentences, giving background on the early struggles between democracy and dictatorship in Syria, are certainly useful to readers hoping to place the civil war in context. - Darouet ( talk) 16:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
he has no defect,they were nopthing more but rebel propaganda!!!!!deleted it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.151.241.195 ( talk) 11:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Syrian civil war → Syrian Arab Spring war – Protesters do not generally turn into an army without being one to begin with. There is no reason to suppose the demonstrators were not invaders, going from one country to the next to fight, like Alexander or like crusaders. The demonstrators could conceivably be the 250,000 lift in Iraq by U.S. President George H.W. Bush. Thus “civil war” is probably not what is going on there. 69.3.115.148 ( talk) 19:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes its a dirty corrupt war and no name I suspect will do it justice. Of course its way beyound a civil war. Its a geopolitical power play. I like 'The Syrian Conflict' for a name, as it leaves room for the host of back room, shadowy nasty interfering players as well. But I think we are stuck with this name because of the pernicious nomenclature in mainstream media and those who oppose any changes based on common sense. Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 22:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
I believe that it actually is a civil war. I mean the definition of civil war is a war in which a country is fighting itself. Kydon Shadow ( talk) 17:44, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
The only media channel that doesn't call this conflict a civil war is SANA and Press TV. All the others, including RT, calls it a civil war. The UN calls it like this as well, the Red Cross, etc. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current name.
Coltsfan (
talk)
00:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Is this article implying the rebel groups under mujahideen are jihadist or islamist, while the rest are not. 70.28.7.229 ( talk) 04:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Not really. It refers to the number of foreign islamists. There are other "indigenous" islamist groups mentioned in the infobox. However, it is good that you started as a topic, because the mujahideen number is slightly troublesome. The source on which the number of 10,000 is based (an article from the Times whose full access is restricted) mentions that "as many as 10,000 foreigners fighting to overthrow President Assad". However, because it is restricted it is unclear to what extent the number of 10,000 overlaps with the estimates for other groups in the infobox (e.g. al-Nusra). I hope somebody who does have access to the full article can answer if these matters are resolved in the rest of the article. Otherwise I will put an asterix at the mujahideen estimate with the remark "Number possibly overlaps with estimates for other groups." -- Tomvasseur ( talk) 10:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a key statement, and should it be ignored the UN's role is over, compromised. Snatch: 'It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”'.
continuing. 'My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal'. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-11/vladimir-putin-addresses-america-nyt-op-ed-calls-caution-syria. Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 01:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Words are wind. Coltsfan ( talk) 23:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Nasty development. Ref? BTW VQuakr Improvements to help reduce the POV noted in the article by several editors could include phrases along the lines of these from the links above. Russia believes, a US strike
and a strike would be counter to.
I think this edit should be reverted because there's no evidence that Turkey has offered lethal suport. Only evidence they offered land for its supply. Otherwise we will have to add Jordana nd a host of other countries to the list as well. Pass a Method talk 10:04, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
A large majority of us (active Wikipedia-editors) will probably agree that this article ‘ Syrian civil war’ is (much) too long. Downloading the article, or any operation on it, usually takes undesirably and unnecessary long times. I therefore fully support the message that was put on top of the article on 4 September 2013, saying: “This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. Please consider splitting content into sub-articles and/or condensing it.” (For reasons I don’t understand, someone on 5 September shortened that message to: “This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably.”) I think all of us (active Wikipedians) who are interested in this article should make an effort to shorten it, by condensing one or several of its longer sections, by making more or better use of sub-articles.
This, I suppose, can or should even be done drasticly. Today, the article had length 272,036 bytes which at my homecomputer equals 42 full screens; perhaps we should strive towards a length of approximately 15 or 10 of such fullscreens (= 97,000 to 65,000 bytes), or even less, to make it comfortably manageable on most computers. But even without agreeing on some final goal, we perhaps can agree on a need for vigorously cutting back.
One first, robust step reducing the length of the article at once with 30% would be moving the entire section 2 (‘Uprising and civil war’, relating mostly chronological the events of the uprising and the civil war up till now) to a sub-article, called: ‘ Events in the Syrian uprising and civil war’. The summary in our main article ‘ Syrian civil war’ in section 2, apart from directing towards ‘Main article: Events in the Syrian uprising and civil war’, might at first run somewhat like: “A short summary of the uprising and war up until now can be found in the lead section of this article Syrian civil war”. Consecutively, that new sub-article ‘ Events in…’ can probably be improved, perhaps issuing into a (preliminary) lead section in that sub-article of say 300 words; leading up again to an improved summary of say approximately 100 words in section 2 of the main article (‘ Syrian civil war#Events’). Corriebertus ( talk) 10:28, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
97k bytes is extraordinarily short for an article with this magnitude of info. We should cut it back down to the 200k limit instead. Sopher99 ( talk) 15:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the article is too long and that the Events section is perhaps the major thing which makes it too long. It provides quite excessive blow-by-blow description of events in the war; what is needed is relatively brief summary of major events and of the key influences, turning points, ebb-and-flow of power etc. I do find that making subarticles helps with turning such excessive description into something briefer and more helpful without loss of information, because you end up making a lead section for the new subarticle that often works pretty well as a summary for use in the main article. My only concern in this instance is that we also have Timeline articles (day-by-day detail) and key event articles (eg Al-Qusayr offensive) and there is a risk of excessive duplication. But anyway, an Events article with a brief summary here is probably the best way to handle this. Podiaebba ( talk) 20:35, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Valgria was a small town, recently destroyed by a misdirected mortar strike. Around 450 of the 500-550 inhabitants are now deceased, many of which were women and children.
Kydon Shadow ( talk) 17:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
While obviously foreign involvement is very important in this conflict this section doesn't do well for the article. Besides that it lacks any references it doesn't offer information distinguitive enough for a separate section. I suggest looking at what parts from "Foreign Involvement" aren't reiterations of what has been written elsewhere & merge the rest either with "International reaction" or "Non-state parties in the conflict". I also suggest renaming "International Reaction" "Reaction from the international community", because then it is more clearly separated from the foreign non-state parties. -- Tomvasseur ( talk) 21:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Apparently the Kurdish National Council agreed to join forces with the Syrian National Council after the latter agreed to rename the Syrian Arab Republic by dropping the "Arab" part. As yet unclear whether this has actually changed things on the ground. Figured I'd leave it here and see what involved editors think should be done: [17] - Kudzu1 ( talk) 04:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Why was this reverted? How is "pro-government militias" a more inclusive and better term? Alawism is an off shoot of Shia Islam. The word Shia is commonly used to refer to followers of the Twelver branch, not offshoots of the denomination. Many don't even consider Alawites to be Muslims. Also, many militiamen are Christian, which clearly don't fit in the " Shia militia allies" category.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 07:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Mainstream Muslims, both Sunni and Shia, regarded them (Alawites) as ghulta, “exaggerators.” -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 15:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Calm down and clam up
|
---|
|
I strongly oppose the recent massive changes and selective removal of contents by User:FutureTrillionaire, and replacing them with POVed contents (e.g. "The Syrian government has been accused of conducting several chemical attacks, the most serious of them being the 2013 Ghouta attacks", as if only the Syrian govt has been accused of the attack, and only the government has been accused of chemical attacks). Since this is a sensitive article, I believe such changes are unacceptable without prior discussion. -- Z 11:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
What happened to the War in Syria.jpg image? The one that contains 8 different images which was used as a cover image by many of the articles in various languages. Thisissparta12345 ( talk) 11:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The last sentence of the introduction, and a large part of the body, emphasize chemical weapons use. This is a minor part of a much larger conflict and the overemphasis on it in this article is derived from US media and State Department rhetoric rather than balanced reporting of the conflict. At minimum the last sentence of the introductory paragraph should point out that over 40% [20] of the FSA's fighting force is Al Qaeda terrorists. Mustang19 ( talk) 22:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
A really telling comment - but is no one interested in debating it? 78.147.84.221 ( talk) 19:54, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Putin: Syria chemical attack is ‘rebels' provocation in hope of intervention’ There was no 50/50 split of opinion (at G20) on the notion of a military strike against the Syrian President Bashar Assad, Putin stressed refuting earlier assumptions.
Only Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia and France joined the US push for intervention, he said, adding that the UK Prime Minister’s position was not supported by his citizens.
Russia “will help Syria” in the event of a military strike, Putin stressed as he responded to a reporter’s question at the summit.
http://rt.com/news/putin-g20-syria-meeting-511/
No hysteria please, objectivity only. 21:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Nope, I am not " missing the point of neutrality"; and you're mixing things up! I have an issue with Putin not telling the full picture in his G-20 press conference. Also you only focus on the US not having full support of the G-20... 55% is still much more than the 35% Mr. Putin can muster. Also: if one includes the EU it is 60% to 35%, that is still an almost twice as strong majority support for the US position! (And NOT almost parity)! The point is not - as you claim one of neutrality or biased coverage - but one of deliberate mis-information by the President of Russia. noclador ( talk) 06:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand the thread of this argument, I think someone is trying to argue Russia has a credible position?! Isnt that prima facie obviously untrue? Russia is defending Assad in the face of evidence - Russia does not claim to have contradictory evidence, they have simply argued anyway, without evidence. Also, the list of who agrees with the USA is much longer then that - Australia is also condemning the syrian government use of chemical weapons.... Ottawakismet ( talk) 13:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
FT please refrain from misusing WP:NOTFORUM as you did above and in a previous thread. You have no consensus. Here is what was said to you in another thread even longer than this one by User:DIREKTOR. 'FT, you clearly misunderstand WP:NOTFORUM. Kindly refrain from messing with posts you personally disagree with and/or are annoyed by. Also please try to keep your language civil.
The point of the thread is that there is no hard evidence yet that Sarin? was deployed by Assad / Syria. This is not reflected in the article. Nor has there been a G20 joint statement stating there is hard evidence. Its all speculation right now. Even a UN report saying it was Sarin that was used, only identifies the chemical agent, not the group who fired it. Neutrality should reflect these facts not political maneuvering. Hopefully these issues will sort out soon. Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 23:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Another Day, Another Chemical Attack?
Apart from an unconfirmed YouTube Video, there is little hard evidence that the Syrian government gassed it's own people. For why would the Syrian government cross the "Red Line", and invite the US to bomb them? While Assad might be bad - he ain't mad. 78.147.84.221 ( talk) 20:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
"On 5 August, another chemical attack by the Syrian army was reported by the opposition, who documented the injured with video footage. The activists claim up to 400 people were effected by the attack in Adra and Houma of the Damascus suburbs." Unless confirmed, should not rebel claims be handled with care? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.115.90 ( talk) 11:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
In the Chemical Weapons Section there is an unverfied image of people in Ghouta "killed by a chemical attack" in August 2013. Should this site use unconfirmed images? 84.13.9.197 ( talk) 22:32, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I stumbled across this article which present an interesting chart of the Syrian Government, which might be of use for the editors. -- PLNR ( talk) 13:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Who is the Washington Institute for Near East Policy?
According to Wikipedia, WINEP "is a think tank based in Washington, D.C. focused on United States foreign policy in the Middle East. Established in 1985,the institute's mission statement states that it seeks to advance a balanced and realistic understanding of American interests in the Middle East and to promote the policies that secure them."
Just happened to "stumbled across" this? 2.96.115.90 ( talk) 11:29, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The Arab Spring ended in most of the Middle East over a year ago (two years ago? Time flies). Syrian conflict came late into the game and is much larger in scale than the rest of the Arab Spring combined. Can we really call it part of the Arab Spring? 96.54.76.154 ( talk) 05:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
In what sense has it ended in any country.they are all still suffering political turmoil. 108.175.224.13 ( talk) 10:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Historians will name it. At the moment we cannot know if it's a part of Arab Spring still or World War III already. Keep it as it is. -- Emesik ( talk) 20:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Part of the Arab Spring - or a US backed "Color Revolts"? 2.96.115.90 ( talk) 11:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Sopher99 just made this edit [27] supported by these two references, [28] [29].
While the lead sentence used to read "According to columnist Feras Abu-Helal and former Homs resident Hassan Ali..." it now reads, "According to Homs residents, witnesses, columnists and analysts, the sectarian undertone was purposefully spread by the Assad government in an attempt to form disunity and quarreling among the restive population." The only columnist is Abu-Helal, however, and the only witness I could find making that statement is Hassan Ali.
If there are more, can those please be demonstrated using quotes here, either from these sources or otherwise? The government relies on its minority Alawite base and I wouldn't be surprised if this were true. Nevertheless we shouldn't make an army of "residents, witnesses, columnists and analsysts" from two people: Abu-Helal and Ali. - Darouet ( talk) 16:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that huge mass of sectarian blabber belongs in the lede to begin with.
I think " In late 2012 UN report described the conflict as "overtly sectarian in nature", though both opposition and government forces denied that. " is enough for a lede, and everything else regarding sectarianism should be removed. Sopher99 ( talk) 17:47, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Removed. Sophers lead insert Statement is not supported by the refs and is weak. This is also far to flimsy and not lead material. one or two people does not make a lead sentence. Expand in body in a NPOV manner if more refs are found, at all. Use this as guideline WP:LEAD Blade-of-the-South ( talk) 00:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
As a long-term supporter of the Free Syrian Army, and someone who continues to use weak evidence to make a (sexed-up) case against the Syrian Government, should not Sopher work for the British Government? 2.96.115.90 ( talk) 11:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)