![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
is this not enough evidence? [1] Baboon43 ( talk) 22:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Lothar has made part of the point I was going to make. As I have said before the Israel-Syria conflict predates the Syrian Civil war. Two armed conflicts that are completely separate can involve a country at the same time. Pug6666 19:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Israeli troops have been in Syria for over 40 years: [2] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 20:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Can we consider the ongoing clashes between Iraqi Army and Sunni insurgents (see [3]), who allegedly en-route to enter Syria, a part of the Syrian civil war? or a spillover of Syrian civil war in Iraq? (like the Spillover of Syrian civil war in Lebanon). Greyshark09 ( talk) 18:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
What about the recent border clashes between Al Nusra and Iraq? The Iraqi army is attempting to cut off Al Quaeda supply lines. Pug6666 21:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
In regard to this issue, I am of the opinion that the border clashes in which the Iraqi Army is involved are directly linked to the Syrian conflict. As such I have created the article May 2013 Iraqi border operation. EkoGraf ( talk) 22:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
It is a spillover so yes it is relevant. Also the Akashat ambush allegedly had Al-Nusra involvement. Pug6666 20:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
'The "vast majority" of human rights violations documented in Syria, including numerous international crimes, have been committed by the Syrian military and security forces and their allied militia.'
In light of the ever-growing number of Human rights violations and war crimes carried out by rebels, should the above statement be updated/corrected? 89.240.218.208 ( talk) 21:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
An "archipelago of torture centers"?
Given the nature of the loaded and over-the-top statement "archipelago of torture centers", should Wikipedia continue to use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.116.73 ( talk) 09:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
What is unbalanced in this article? I'm creating this section so it can be discussed if this article is really in need of rewritten. RocketLauncher2 ( talk) 10:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Can someone point me to policy regarding this tag (ie. < Template:Unbalanced)? I thought there was a requirement for there to exist specific objections in the talk page. I see none. Would anyone oppose it's removal? TippyGoomba ( talk) 18:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
For stomping on other peoples edits here But when women and children are involved, it warants a friging mention Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, this article says that there are about 2000 Tunisians fighting in Syria on the rebel side, can that info be added to the infobox somehow? Esn ( talk) 17:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
100 from the Netherlands. Does anyone object to starting an article with a list of these figures? I haven't been looking, I just happened to find these two by chance. I'd want the list to have more than 2 countries to start with, so does anyone know of any other links where these numbers are listed? Esn ( talk) 07:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
We have an entire section called for support for opposition which describes which countries the foreigners come from. All foreigners join a brigade or organization like FSA Ahrar or Nusra, so you can't put ti in the infobox. Sopher99 ( talk) 09:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking about a footnote leading to a section which could look somewhat like this;
-- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 15:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course not, we need to keep up the illusion that the Syrian government forces are comprised of foreigners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.204.212 ( talk) 19:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
@Sopher99, there aren't any such numbers in the "support for opposition" section; I think you meant the section below it called "Mujahideen involvement". I really like Mikrobølgeovn's idea. A simple infobox-like structure, just the country flag and the numbers (low to high ranges), for easy reference. Maybe something like that could be added to the existing "Mujahideen involvement" section, linked to in the infobox with a footnote. The problem is that the section already mentions many of those numbers, but in paragraphs. I think that something like Mikrobølgeovn's suggestion would have a lot of value because it would be much quicker to scan for the reader. Why exactly are you guys opposed to making it a collapsible list? There's already one of those in the infobox, the "Supported by:" under the Syrian national coalition. Another one could be added under "Foreign Mujahideen" called "Made up of:" or "From these countries:". Anyway, it doesn't look like we have 100 countries so far. There are only a few that we have numbers for. If it gets out of hand, it can be moved. Esn ( talk) 08:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
200 from the Russian Federation fighting on the rebel side. Esn ( talk) 06:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I think we should mention that there is a major discrepancy in how the U.S. government views the crisis and how its people view the crisis. Seems to undermine democracy in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 ( talk) 15:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll add it anyway. Whatever Sopher99 ( talk) 16:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok Sopher I usually agree with you but at least source some polls supporting you so these arguments don't happen. Sending in troops and arming a party in a conflict are very diffrent things. Pug6666 16:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
POV pushing? The U.S. government is at a crossroads with Syria. The E.U. is at a crossroads with Syria. They are seriously looking at arming the opposition. I know they haven't yet but this is a real possibly. The population of the U.S. anyways doesn't support this. It'd be important to provide at least one sentence mentioning this discrepancy. Perhaps in the foreign support column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 ( talk) 17:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
More than 80 Conservative backbenchers demanded opportunity to block supply of weapons
The Independent, Thursday, 06 June, 2013.
At last, the Tory Party (if not its leader) is waking up to the dangers of arming the rebels. 88.107.54.78 ( talk) 19:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
As far as I remember, we agreed on citing the unreliable sources for the death toll only. However, today the article reports many military events basing only on SOHR reports. This might be useful in a situation where independent news coverage is scarce. However, we should set some rules and keep to them. The options I see are:
I'm still in favor of the solution number 2. -- Emesik ( talk) 20:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem with solution number 2 is that we can't verify the reliability of the numbers that SOHR give (most of it is shown to us via facebook). And SANA, well, they don't even recognize/acknowledge that their country is at a full scale civil war. Coltsfan ( talk) 17:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to collect these. I'll take a look at the sourcing shortly. TippyGoomba ( talk) 21:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Pass a Method is trying to add non-Hezbollah Shia fighters into the infobox. I don't see any sources that support this. What do you guys think? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 23:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
According to this report, the FSA is part of the Supreme Military Council: "The council of leaders includes representatives from the Free Syrian Army, the Syrian Liberation Front, the Syrian Islamic Front, independent brigades..." If this is accurate, we need to change how the infobox presents the rebel forces.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 15:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Casualties and losses Syrian government 24,617 soldiers and policemen killed[42] 17,031 militiamen killed[42] 1,000 government officials killed[43] 2,500 government forces and supporters captured[44] Hezbollah 145 killed[42]
Ok you guys are on drugs 43% are supportes of the government but not soldiers does numbers are for civilians as well by this math you do that means that the rest are opposition fighters make up the rest of the death (57%)that means that around 55 000 killed opposition fighters so please correct the numbers so you dont give missleading info to other readers on wikipedia.
put back the numbers as previous also for the opposition as well
why i no one including the airforce in the combat force of the government it is composed of 60 000 men and it has seen the lowest defection but its not on the list
also stop promoting this as a secterian conflict 70% of the syrian army are sunni most of the pilots are also sunni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daki122 ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
thanks for understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daki122 ( talk • contribs) 17:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Air_Force there is the airforce strenght it is a separate branch from the ground army and has some elite airborne units among it and it has seen the least defection and is active in combat since june last year.Also SOHR pro opposition source claims that the casulties between the government are split almost 50-50 with the government having slightly more on their side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daki122 ( talk • contribs) 07:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
This has already been factored in. Based on SOHR's estimations an upper estimate of rebel fatalities has been established to be 41,800 and this has been included in the infobox. EkoGraf ( talk) 23:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Part: of War on Terror? This is a highly problematic juxtaposition as the Assad regime claim is that the war is part of this, when the conflict only began after increasingly brutal and violent crackdowns of protests in the Arab Spring. Please edit that section to reflect this. Thank you. 76.118.249.161 ( talk) 07:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Portal:Syrian civil war was created - contributions are welcome. Greyshark09 ( talk) 07:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there a specific reason as to why "civil war" is not capitalized in the article title? Given the other major ongoing civil war named as such, the Somali Civil War, is capitalized, I am rather confused. AuburnAttack21 ( talk) 20:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The SOHR itself claims that "94,000" people have been killed during the conflict, and that "at least 41,000 of those confirmed killed were Alawites". [8] This means that half of those killed in the conflict are pro-regime, since many Sunnis, as well as Christians, are fighting in the Syrian army. FunkMonk ( talk) 13:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
More specifically half of the dead are pro-regime militia and soldiers.
"We have been informed by 8 long-standing political activists from Tartous, Banias, Jablah, Latakia, Misyaf, Qadmous, and Homs, many of whom active during the Hafez al-Assad regime and imprisoned by him. They report that losses of regular soldiers from these areas alone exceeds 24,000 and that the number of casualties from the non-military combatants (Popular Committees, National Defence Forces, Shabiha) exceeds 17,000. they have documented the full names of more than 35,000 of these casualties, the rest are documented by photos."
http://supportkurds.org/news/tuesday-14-may-2013/
https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/369140923194252
Ten there's also the 120,000 figure.
Sopher99 ( talk) 14:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Is someone suggesting an edit here? TippyGoomba ( talk) 15:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Iran and Russia may be messing about but the Gulf states, Turkey, the US and the UK are also messing in...its the name of the game. Always has been and always will be. As for the caracterisation that its a dictatorship vs revolutionaries I am not sure about that. The Assad government may be a dictatorship yes, but the opposition is anything but revolutionaries. A revolution, per Wikipedia itself, is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. I would not call more than two years of brutal war a relatively short period. Also, a revolution is backed by an overwhelming popularity, while in Syria there is no such case. In Syria the opposition is backed by at least 50 percent of the population. Because you got 13 percent Alawites, 10 percent Christians and 3 percent Druze who are pro-government, 10 percent Kurds who have taken a neutral stance and than, don't forget, there are the Sunni Assad government loyalists who would make up at least another 10 percent. Thus they are best described simply as rebels. So, this is not a revolution, its a battle between world powers at the expense of smaller countries like Syria who end up as the ones who will loose the most. I said my piece, not trying to make a forum out of this, lets return to editing shall we. :) EkoGraf ( talk) 23:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
"The war started because Assad was mowing innocent protestors down in the streets"
Talking of ways to undermine a case? For only the most pro-rebel supporter would dare use such a (sub-standard US State Department) comment. 84.13.13.222 ( talk) 10:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The real country to blame for the destruction of syria is Iran then Russia ,they supported Assad from day one ,Iran helped Assad to brutally crush the protests,with intelligence,and the other countries used the Syrians, Russia gave Assad cover,the only country that acted on moral causes was turkey. Alhanuty ( talk) 03:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
It was the syrian who decided to bear arms,turkey didn't support them with arms till the fall of the border passes of bab alhawa and bab alsalam,and 5,000 Syrians died during the peaceful protest and thousands more unknown,1000 syrian were dying a month during the peaceful protest,if the protests continued till today 40,000 would have been dead and more missing, Iran helped Assad since the beginning with intelligence and everything,and the sectarian buildup of the syrian army helped the conflict to grow,and sending the alawites only, sectarianized it and Assad sectarianized the protest by propagandizing that the foreign jihadist were in syria in 2011 threatening the minorities which was a plain lie at that time,if the Sunni troops were send out the majority of them would have defected,and a less bloodshed would have happened or maybe they might have made a coup against him but they were kept till today in their barracks, the syrian found protesting not getting anywhere after the Ramadan 2011 crush of the protests so they went in arms and notice Assad is no 1 responsible for the Destruction of syria. Alhanuty ( talk) 05:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
"1000 syrian were dying a month during the peaceful protest". "Assad is no 1 responsible for the Destruction of syria". Wikipedia allows this BS from in-house FSA cheer-leaders, yet blocks/deletes questions about the US policy and Syria. For it is also unwilling to admit any US responsible for the Destruction of Syria. Why is Wikipedia anti-Assad, yet pro-FSA? 78.147.87.172 ( talk) 22:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
This is fact 5,000 syrian died during the protests,and their wasn't any armed group at all from march till October of 2011, and all fighters from october till july 2012 where army defectors and syrian civilians ,and yes Assad is no 1 responsible of sending The army to quell protests, and his could be seen in the August 2011 mass quelling of protest,he is responsible for dividing syria in sectarian lines, destroying infrastructure of syria, only 846 died in Egypt ,5,000 in Syria,the egyptian army was built on national grounds,the syrian army was built based on sectarian background,the egyptian army refused to use force on protesters,they even forced Mubarak to resign,syrian army different ,they obeyed assad's order to shooting protesters,use heavy artillery ,and most who were committing the atrocities where the alawite soldiers,and Assad is really throwing the alawites into the abyss,Assad has led the region to the doors of sectarian war,especially after Hezbollah interference in the fighting,there is really no longer a syrian army it is really now militia vs militia,IP WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE AND STOP VANDALIZING MY PAGE Alhanuty ( talk) 03:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
there was no armed opposition from march to october 2011 it was only peaceful protesting , and notice only assad's media only said there was an armed opposition to sectarianize the protest and scare the alawites from participating in the protest,because you had cities as latikia and baniyas protesting in the beginning of there protest,when he was able to sectarianize the protest,the alawites stopped protesting Alhanuty ( talk) 12:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
collapsing per
WP:NOTFORUM
|
---|
I know the FSA has been formed in July but it was ineffective till October and September where it became effective but funk is saying that the armed opposition existed in march 2011 and maybe before that,which is false. Alhanuty ( talk) 17:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC) IRAN is so responsible ,actually they are the most responsible for how the event went,and Assad is responsible for ordering the army to quell the protest,and the August crackdown best demonstrates that,turkey only gave moral support,the military support began to arrive after the fall of bab al Hawa and al Salam border point, but Iran was sending weapons way before that, for the alawite state,if rebel forces unify and fight with each other they might be able to defeat the alawite state because the alawites will be very exhausted to continue fighting and they already lost human power in the conflict,the Kurds state will be inevitable and the rebels will have to allow self rule for Kurds or other wise the Kurd will separate,and the Kurds will not be exhausted as the alawites Alhanuty ( talk) 17:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I know the FSA has been formed in July but it was ineffective till October and September where it became effective but funk is saying that the armed opposition existed in march 2011 and maybe before that,which is false. Alhanuty ( talk) 17:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC) IRAN is so responsible ,actually they are the most responsible for how the event went,and Assad is responsible for ordering the army to quell the protest,and the August crackdown best demonstrates that,turkey only gave moral support,the military support began to arrive after the fall of bab al Hawa and al Salam border point, but Iran was sending weapons way before that, for the alawite state,if rebel forces unify and fight with each other they might be able to defeat the alawite state because the alawites will be very exhausted to continue fighting and they already lost human power in the conflict,the Kurds state will be inevitable and the rebels will have to allow self rule for Kurds or other wise the Kurd will separate,and the Kurds will not be exhausted as the alawites Alhanuty ( talk) 17:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC) The Geneva 2 will fail,but most likely, the moderate fighters will be armed if the Geneva 2 fails maybe some interference,but most likely the combined Hezbollah government attack will stall after the rebels are armed,and the rebels will be back on the offense by August 2013 Alhanuty ( talk) 18:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
That is a Pseudo article Alhanuty ( talk) 20:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC) |
Is an edit still being suggested? I can't tell from the most-recent chatter. TippyGoomba ( talk) 21:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Before any edit, and to put this "debate" into some kind of context, would not a few simple pointers be most useful? 88.107.54.78 ( talk) 17:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
its not a secret israel is involved in this war [9] Baboon43 ( talk) 00:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The article doesn't seem to have much about the amount of support each side has. This article can be a starting point for adding such information: http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/
PS: To the user who removed this section: I don't understand why you removed this section. I am suggesting a new section about the amount of popular support for each side. Your reason for removal doesn't make any sense. 24.212.193.99 ( talk) 20:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, looking deeply to the sources that claim to know how the revolt started in Deraa I found inconsistent and troubling allegations with only one well known source. For inconsistent, one of the source talk about a no named boy of 17 years old who made a graffiti "now it's your turn bashar". I want to point out this is very weird the name of the boy can not be known of some revolts have been made on the behalf of him. This is preposterous, more if he left the country. And one could ask if it's not an unreliable story. Maybe a rumor spread among people a boy were tortured, I found it very weird a name didn't circulate. The second source, who is not even a journalist, but a kind of blogger with only one article, and of whom you can find no traces around the web states it was a 15 year old boy who made a graffiti "the regime must go down" Which is not exactly the same. So it really looks like a rumor. We call it the Arabic phone, imagine if facts happen a long time ago, thousands of kilometres from here. Klinfran ( talk) 08:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Hamas is allegedly involved in the Syrian civil war now; it is fighting on the side of the FSA. I've been looking for other sources to confirm. Source: [11] I did not add it to the infobox as I suppose it might be controversial and should be discussed first. David O. Johnson ( talk) 21:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Here is another article claiming that a few hundred Hamas fighters are fighting with the FSA [12]; however, Hamas denies it. David O. Johnson ( talk) 00:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
So should Hamas be added to the infobox or not? David O. Johnson ( talk) 04:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
There is more evidence of Hamas involvement: ""Some of the rebels IEDs, as well as the tunnels they built had the markings of Hamas," said Beirut-based journalist Nicholas Blanford, author of Warriors of God: Inside Hezbollah's Thirty-year Struggle Against Israel."" [13] David O. Johnson ( talk) 06:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Is Hamas fighting in Syria or they are just providing support? There is a difference. If they are just providing support, then it should go to this article, and not to this one here. As far as I know, the infobox is just for notorious combatants. Coltsfan ( talk) 17:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
As I stated earlier, there is a report of a few hundred Hamas fighters being involved directly with the war by fighting alongside the FSA. [14] David O. Johnson ( talk) 19:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The article also states that "A Palestinian source from Lebanon’s Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp said that it was common knowledge that a few hundred Hamas operatives were fighting alongside the FSA in the Yarmouk and Neirab Palestinian camps in Damascus and Aleppo, Syria’s commercial capital." David O. Johnson ( talk) 22:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
One more source is here: [15] David O. Johnson ( talk) 05:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Almost 300k now! i did cut down about 1kb, but that is nothing - we need some serious effort on the structure of the article. I suggest we cut down the initial part of the rebellion (the protests and uprising stage); we may keep the info as a split sub-article - something like "First phase of the Syrian civil war". This would decrease 10-20kb. Suggestions? Greyshark09 ( talk) 08:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
“ | On 19 July, Russia and China vetoed a United Nations resolution that would impose sanctions against the Syrian government, showing again the divide in international opinion towards the conflict. [1] Russia and China, who are major trade allies with Syria, stated that they sought a more balanced resolution calling equally on both sides to halt violence. [2] On the same day, Iraqi officials reported that the FSA had gained control of all four border checkpoints between Syria and Iraq, increasing concerns for the safety of Iraqis trying to escape the violence in Syria. [3] | ” |
Now on the scale of the article about the civil war in general, this is far too much detail and unnecessary information. "Russia and China vetoed a United Nations resolution that would impose sanctions" - yes important fact. "Russia and China, who are major trade allies with Syria" - that has been stated many times already and has already a devoted subsection under "Foreign reaction and involvement" (which also needs to be trimmed and the extra information to be in the linked articles). "FSA had gained control of all four border checkpoints" - too minor to be included in the main article.
And pretty much any part of article can trimmed in this way. D2306 ( talk) 11:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it should be noted that currently, without knowledge of the future, it's impossible to know which details in the article will become pertinent and so trimming the article is complex in that something deleted may later become important. Should it not be figured that the article should be larger than the average article due to new facts coming out every day? Surely we won't trim it down every single time something new happens. -- Respite From Revision ( talk) 14:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Alright where do we put daily events? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_civil_war_(from_May_2013) is scheduled for deletion, so please advise me accordingly. Cjblair ( talk) 03:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
In light of Operation al-Shabah, I think it's time to add Iraq on the government side, but as a co-belligerent or something along those lines. Thoughts ? - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 18:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
There has been reports of Turkish security forces finding 2 kilograms of Sarin gas in the hands of Syrian rebels in Turkish media (e.g. http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/sarin_gazi_sonrasi_3_supheli_arac_alarmi-1135662) and also on Russia Today ( http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/).
Does it worth including in the section about chemical weapons? It seems relevant since the section seems to heavy implying that there is no hard evidence of Syrian rebels having access to chemical weapons.
There were also reports about Iraqi security forces finding chemical weapons in the hands of Syrian rebels in some newspapers. 24.212.193.99 ( talk) 07:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
On the left hand side is members of the SNC under "commanders and leaders", but why is this?.
What influence do members of the SNC actually have in Syria?.Is there evidence of any?. 70.48.209.147 ( talk) 21:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Now that the United States has officially announced that they will be providing military support to the rebels shouldn't they be added to the combatant menu at the top of the page as supporters of the rebel-side? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.14.145 ( talk) 00:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Israeli defence minister Yaalon says more than 1000 hezbollah fighters heve been killed in Syria. [16] I think the infobox must be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.138.217 ( talk) 13:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Under demographics, >generating resentment among some Sunni Muslims,[96] a sect that makes up about three-quarters of Syria's population. However, in the ethno-religious graph right next to this, only 60% are Arab-Sunni. Even when adding in all other Sunnis, it doesn't rise above 70%. I think it'd be more accurate to call it "two thirds", if only by a few percentage points. 70.78.8.194 ( talk) 01:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Under 'Strength' in the infobox, the Syrian Islamic Front was accompanied by the Syrian opposition flag until recently, since it has largely pledged its allegiance to the SMC, but there have been claims by some users that it doesn't operate under that flag, so it has been replaced with its logo, a non-free file, which has since been removed (logically). I think we should figure out whether or not the Syrian Islamic Front is using the opposition flag in the field and how we should mention them in the infobox. Terrortank ( talk) 14:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Latest news, the infobox needs fixing: "The Independent on Sunday has learned that a military decision has been taken in Iran – even before last week’s presidential election – to send a first contingent of 4,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards to Syria to support President Bashar al-Assad’s forces" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-will-send-4000-troops-to-aid-bashar-alassads-forces-in-syria-8660358.html FunkMonk ( talk) 10:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Do we create a new page or just mention on this page?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-60-shia-muslims-massacred-in-rebel-cleansing-of-hatla-8656301.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 ( talk) 03:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The intro reads:
However, human rights groups report that the majority of abuses have been committed by the Syrian government's forces, and UN investigations have concluded that the government's abuses are the greatest in both gravity and scale.[84][85]
This information is from over a year ago and the situation may have changed considerably since then. For example, the jihadist elements within the FSA have strengthened and the organization controls more territory and is better able to carry out atrocities, eg the cannibalism incident.
Please amend the intro paragraph to a neutral statement, such as "both sides have been accused of human rights violations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.248.182 ( talk) 08:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
This comment still hasn't received a response.
{{edit semi-protected}}
I also would like an investigation of Sopher99 for protecting the page to avoid NPOV disputes. 71.163.248.182 ( talk) 10:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
And the problem with the request is? For it seems to be asking to change X (concerning, the vast majority of abuses have been committed by the Syrian government) to Y ("both sides have been accused of human rights violations."). Yet again, it appears that someone wants to retain one-sided statements. Is not this a reason to investigate? 78.147.87.49 ( talk) 22:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
P.S: A short while back it was requested that the statement, "archipelago of torture centers", be deleted - since it was one-sided and over the top. Yet again, there was no reply. 78.147.87.49 ( talk) 22:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
“While the vast majority of war crimes and other gross violations continue to be committed by government forces, our research also points to an escalation in abuses by armed opposition groups. " - vast majority- March 2013. [17] Sayerslle ( talk) 23:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Amnesty International is not an independent source and shares executive staff with the State Department. There is no recent evidence to support the claim that a "vast majority" of atrocities are performed by the government. In any case please at least amend the closing paragaph to "While the majority of war crimes and other gross violations continue to be committed by government forces, research also points to an escalation in abuses by armed opposition groups."
78.147, please explain how "both sides have been accused of human rights violations" is a one-sided statement.
Finally, even if we assume that the sentence in question is correct, it's still a POV violation to include it in the introduction without balancing information on the FSA, for instance the fact that the majority of Syrians consider the FSA incapable of governing and support Assad.
New York Times:
"There’s good reason why 55 percent of Syrians polled recently still support Assad. They prefer his (flawed) promise of security and stability to the (untested) opposition’s offer of a democracy enveloped in blood. Assad’s appeal is not that he offers freedom, but security. And by killing mercilessly he illustrates that, like his father’s regime, he will use an iron fist to try to control Syria."
71.163.248.182 ( talk) 16:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Since "both sides have been accused of human rights violations" is a balanced remark, the one-sided statement is the one claiming that the "vast majority of abuses have been committed by the Syrian government." And yet, despite growing evidence of FSA human rights violations, this statement remains unchanged. 2.96.115.55 ( talk) 20:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The statement appears to have been changed by now. Thank you, Sopher.
However you are still deleting the New York times cite provided above, claiming it cites Syrian state TV when it clearly does not. This is dishonest and improper behavior for a moderator, warranting suspension of admin privileges. 71.163.248.182 ( talk) 20:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The obsolete UN report from 2012 has been re-added by someone into the article without discussion on the talk page. Here are the latest UN statements, which do not directly support their previous claims.
GENEVA — Reporting “new levels of brutality” in Syria’s more than two-year-old conflict, United Nations investigators said on Tuesday that they believed that chemical weapons and more indiscriminate bombing had been used in recent weeks and urged world powers to cut off supplies of weapons that could only result in more civilian casualties.
This more recent report should replace the outdated one. Mustang19 ( talk) 13:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Human rights violations Main article: Human rights violations during the Syrian civil war Weekly deaths over the course of the conflict in Syria (18 March 2011 – 1 March 2013) Human rights violations Main article: Human rights violations during the Syrian civil war Weekly deaths over the course of the conflict in Syria (18 March 2011 – 1 March 2013)
From careful reading of the article on Human Rights Violations, it is clear that the vast majority of the section is out-dated and one-sided. And yet no amount of comments or questioning has led to improvements. Why is this document being protected? 78.147.83.33 ( talk) 21:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Greyshark09 has proposed that we submit a request to Arbcom to create a 1RR Syrian civil war arbitration tool. Does anyone oppose this proposal? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 15:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I am going to oppose on the grounds that this article is already subject to arbitration. Pug6666 16:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
A good recent article on the various rebel groups, including strength estimations. Machinarium ( talk) 12:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The source [18] for 4000-4500, is for those who allegedely were transported from Qandil to Syrian Kurdistan, not total number of YPG fighters. It is also from early July 2012, as YPG has been intensively training large numbers of new recruits ever since. Recently Salih Muslim said the number is over 15000 [19]. Roboskiye ( talk) 09:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
lets call it a wrap and add "decisive syrian government forces victory" in the infobox. [20] Baboon43 ( talk) 01:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
While a little early to call it a decisive victory, this newsblog gives a strong indication that the Syrian government forces are not doing that badly - thank you. It also points out that, had Assad lost the level support claimed, he would have gone by now. Clearly, this view is not welcome by the FSA cheer-leaders. 78.147.86.72 ( talk) 20:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Why are the threads on the talk page being archived so aggressively? This is the most aggressive archiving that I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Is there a guideline about when it is appropriate to use such aggressive automatic archiving? 24.212.193.99 ( talk) 04:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/20/us-syria-crisis-kurds-idUSBRE95J0TH20130620
more and more proof of PKK involvement (specially after ceasefire with Turkey) -- Reader1987 ( talk) 19:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the usual case is to list all belligerents, and there is no reason to omit participation of Syrian and Iranian governments here. For example in North Yemen Civil War article, all participants are listed as "opposing forces". Greyshark09 ( talk) 21:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Azadi Party have their own heading? The way the infobox is setup currently makes it seem as though it is part of the mujahideen, though that is not the case. David O. Johnson ( talk) 05:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | 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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
is this not enough evidence? [1] Baboon43 ( talk) 22:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Lothar has made part of the point I was going to make. As I have said before the Israel-Syria conflict predates the Syrian Civil war. Two armed conflicts that are completely separate can involve a country at the same time. Pug6666 19:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Israeli troops have been in Syria for over 40 years: [2] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 20:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Can we consider the ongoing clashes between Iraqi Army and Sunni insurgents (see [3]), who allegedly en-route to enter Syria, a part of the Syrian civil war? or a spillover of Syrian civil war in Iraq? (like the Spillover of Syrian civil war in Lebanon). Greyshark09 ( talk) 18:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
What about the recent border clashes between Al Nusra and Iraq? The Iraqi army is attempting to cut off Al Quaeda supply lines. Pug6666 21:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
In regard to this issue, I am of the opinion that the border clashes in which the Iraqi Army is involved are directly linked to the Syrian conflict. As such I have created the article May 2013 Iraqi border operation. EkoGraf ( talk) 22:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
It is a spillover so yes it is relevant. Also the Akashat ambush allegedly had Al-Nusra involvement. Pug6666 20:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
'The "vast majority" of human rights violations documented in Syria, including numerous international crimes, have been committed by the Syrian military and security forces and their allied militia.'
In light of the ever-growing number of Human rights violations and war crimes carried out by rebels, should the above statement be updated/corrected? 89.240.218.208 ( talk) 21:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
An "archipelago of torture centers"?
Given the nature of the loaded and over-the-top statement "archipelago of torture centers", should Wikipedia continue to use it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.116.73 ( talk) 09:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
What is unbalanced in this article? I'm creating this section so it can be discussed if this article is really in need of rewritten. RocketLauncher2 ( talk) 10:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Can someone point me to policy regarding this tag (ie. < Template:Unbalanced)? I thought there was a requirement for there to exist specific objections in the talk page. I see none. Would anyone oppose it's removal? TippyGoomba ( talk) 18:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
For stomping on other peoples edits here But when women and children are involved, it warants a friging mention Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, this article says that there are about 2000 Tunisians fighting in Syria on the rebel side, can that info be added to the infobox somehow? Esn ( talk) 17:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
100 from the Netherlands. Does anyone object to starting an article with a list of these figures? I haven't been looking, I just happened to find these two by chance. I'd want the list to have more than 2 countries to start with, so does anyone know of any other links where these numbers are listed? Esn ( talk) 07:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
We have an entire section called for support for opposition which describes which countries the foreigners come from. All foreigners join a brigade or organization like FSA Ahrar or Nusra, so you can't put ti in the infobox. Sopher99 ( talk) 09:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking about a footnote leading to a section which could look somewhat like this;
-- Mikrobølgeovn ( talk) 15:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course not, we need to keep up the illusion that the Syrian government forces are comprised of foreigners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.204.212 ( talk) 19:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
@Sopher99, there aren't any such numbers in the "support for opposition" section; I think you meant the section below it called "Mujahideen involvement". I really like Mikrobølgeovn's idea. A simple infobox-like structure, just the country flag and the numbers (low to high ranges), for easy reference. Maybe something like that could be added to the existing "Mujahideen involvement" section, linked to in the infobox with a footnote. The problem is that the section already mentions many of those numbers, but in paragraphs. I think that something like Mikrobølgeovn's suggestion would have a lot of value because it would be much quicker to scan for the reader. Why exactly are you guys opposed to making it a collapsible list? There's already one of those in the infobox, the "Supported by:" under the Syrian national coalition. Another one could be added under "Foreign Mujahideen" called "Made up of:" or "From these countries:". Anyway, it doesn't look like we have 100 countries so far. There are only a few that we have numbers for. If it gets out of hand, it can be moved. Esn ( talk) 08:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
200 from the Russian Federation fighting on the rebel side. Esn ( talk) 06:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I think we should mention that there is a major discrepancy in how the U.S. government views the crisis and how its people view the crisis. Seems to undermine democracy in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 ( talk) 15:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll add it anyway. Whatever Sopher99 ( talk) 16:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Ok Sopher I usually agree with you but at least source some polls supporting you so these arguments don't happen. Sending in troops and arming a party in a conflict are very diffrent things. Pug6666 16:58, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
POV pushing? The U.S. government is at a crossroads with Syria. The E.U. is at a crossroads with Syria. They are seriously looking at arming the opposition. I know they haven't yet but this is a real possibly. The population of the U.S. anyways doesn't support this. It'd be important to provide at least one sentence mentioning this discrepancy. Perhaps in the foreign support column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 ( talk) 17:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
More than 80 Conservative backbenchers demanded opportunity to block supply of weapons
The Independent, Thursday, 06 June, 2013.
At last, the Tory Party (if not its leader) is waking up to the dangers of arming the rebels. 88.107.54.78 ( talk) 19:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
As far as I remember, we agreed on citing the unreliable sources for the death toll only. However, today the article reports many military events basing only on SOHR reports. This might be useful in a situation where independent news coverage is scarce. However, we should set some rules and keep to them. The options I see are:
I'm still in favor of the solution number 2. -- Emesik ( talk) 20:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The problem with solution number 2 is that we can't verify the reliability of the numbers that SOHR give (most of it is shown to us via facebook). And SANA, well, they don't even recognize/acknowledge that their country is at a full scale civil war. Coltsfan ( talk) 17:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to collect these. I'll take a look at the sourcing shortly. TippyGoomba ( talk) 21:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Pass a Method is trying to add non-Hezbollah Shia fighters into the infobox. I don't see any sources that support this. What do you guys think? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 23:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
According to this report, the FSA is part of the Supreme Military Council: "The council of leaders includes representatives from the Free Syrian Army, the Syrian Liberation Front, the Syrian Islamic Front, independent brigades..." If this is accurate, we need to change how the infobox presents the rebel forces.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 15:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Casualties and losses Syrian government 24,617 soldiers and policemen killed[42] 17,031 militiamen killed[42] 1,000 government officials killed[43] 2,500 government forces and supporters captured[44] Hezbollah 145 killed[42]
Ok you guys are on drugs 43% are supportes of the government but not soldiers does numbers are for civilians as well by this math you do that means that the rest are opposition fighters make up the rest of the death (57%)that means that around 55 000 killed opposition fighters so please correct the numbers so you dont give missleading info to other readers on wikipedia.
put back the numbers as previous also for the opposition as well
why i no one including the airforce in the combat force of the government it is composed of 60 000 men and it has seen the lowest defection but its not on the list
also stop promoting this as a secterian conflict 70% of the syrian army are sunni most of the pilots are also sunni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daki122 ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
thanks for understanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daki122 ( talk • contribs) 17:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Air_Force there is the airforce strenght it is a separate branch from the ground army and has some elite airborne units among it and it has seen the least defection and is active in combat since june last year.Also SOHR pro opposition source claims that the casulties between the government are split almost 50-50 with the government having slightly more on their side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daki122 ( talk • contribs) 07:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
This has already been factored in. Based on SOHR's estimations an upper estimate of rebel fatalities has been established to be 41,800 and this has been included in the infobox. EkoGraf ( talk) 23:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Part: of War on Terror? This is a highly problematic juxtaposition as the Assad regime claim is that the war is part of this, when the conflict only began after increasingly brutal and violent crackdowns of protests in the Arab Spring. Please edit that section to reflect this. Thank you. 76.118.249.161 ( talk) 07:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Portal:Syrian civil war was created - contributions are welcome. Greyshark09 ( talk) 07:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Is there a specific reason as to why "civil war" is not capitalized in the article title? Given the other major ongoing civil war named as such, the Somali Civil War, is capitalized, I am rather confused. AuburnAttack21 ( talk) 20:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The SOHR itself claims that "94,000" people have been killed during the conflict, and that "at least 41,000 of those confirmed killed were Alawites". [8] This means that half of those killed in the conflict are pro-regime, since many Sunnis, as well as Christians, are fighting in the Syrian army. FunkMonk ( talk) 13:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
More specifically half of the dead are pro-regime militia and soldiers.
"We have been informed by 8 long-standing political activists from Tartous, Banias, Jablah, Latakia, Misyaf, Qadmous, and Homs, many of whom active during the Hafez al-Assad regime and imprisoned by him. They report that losses of regular soldiers from these areas alone exceeds 24,000 and that the number of casualties from the non-military combatants (Popular Committees, National Defence Forces, Shabiha) exceeds 17,000. they have documented the full names of more than 35,000 of these casualties, the rest are documented by photos."
http://supportkurds.org/news/tuesday-14-may-2013/
https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/369140923194252
Ten there's also the 120,000 figure.
Sopher99 ( talk) 14:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Is someone suggesting an edit here? TippyGoomba ( talk) 15:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Iran and Russia may be messing about but the Gulf states, Turkey, the US and the UK are also messing in...its the name of the game. Always has been and always will be. As for the caracterisation that its a dictatorship vs revolutionaries I am not sure about that. The Assad government may be a dictatorship yes, but the opposition is anything but revolutionaries. A revolution, per Wikipedia itself, is a fundamental change in power or organizational structures that takes place in a relatively short period of time. I would not call more than two years of brutal war a relatively short period. Also, a revolution is backed by an overwhelming popularity, while in Syria there is no such case. In Syria the opposition is backed by at least 50 percent of the population. Because you got 13 percent Alawites, 10 percent Christians and 3 percent Druze who are pro-government, 10 percent Kurds who have taken a neutral stance and than, don't forget, there are the Sunni Assad government loyalists who would make up at least another 10 percent. Thus they are best described simply as rebels. So, this is not a revolution, its a battle between world powers at the expense of smaller countries like Syria who end up as the ones who will loose the most. I said my piece, not trying to make a forum out of this, lets return to editing shall we. :) EkoGraf ( talk) 23:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
"The war started because Assad was mowing innocent protestors down in the streets"
Talking of ways to undermine a case? For only the most pro-rebel supporter would dare use such a (sub-standard US State Department) comment. 84.13.13.222 ( talk) 10:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The real country to blame for the destruction of syria is Iran then Russia ,they supported Assad from day one ,Iran helped Assad to brutally crush the protests,with intelligence,and the other countries used the Syrians, Russia gave Assad cover,the only country that acted on moral causes was turkey. Alhanuty ( talk) 03:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
It was the syrian who decided to bear arms,turkey didn't support them with arms till the fall of the border passes of bab alhawa and bab alsalam,and 5,000 Syrians died during the peaceful protest and thousands more unknown,1000 syrian were dying a month during the peaceful protest,if the protests continued till today 40,000 would have been dead and more missing, Iran helped Assad since the beginning with intelligence and everything,and the sectarian buildup of the syrian army helped the conflict to grow,and sending the alawites only, sectarianized it and Assad sectarianized the protest by propagandizing that the foreign jihadist were in syria in 2011 threatening the minorities which was a plain lie at that time,if the Sunni troops were send out the majority of them would have defected,and a less bloodshed would have happened or maybe they might have made a coup against him but they were kept till today in their barracks, the syrian found protesting not getting anywhere after the Ramadan 2011 crush of the protests so they went in arms and notice Assad is no 1 responsible for the Destruction of syria. Alhanuty ( talk) 05:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
"1000 syrian were dying a month during the peaceful protest". "Assad is no 1 responsible for the Destruction of syria". Wikipedia allows this BS from in-house FSA cheer-leaders, yet blocks/deletes questions about the US policy and Syria. For it is also unwilling to admit any US responsible for the Destruction of Syria. Why is Wikipedia anti-Assad, yet pro-FSA? 78.147.87.172 ( talk) 22:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
This is fact 5,000 syrian died during the protests,and their wasn't any armed group at all from march till October of 2011, and all fighters from october till july 2012 where army defectors and syrian civilians ,and yes Assad is no 1 responsible of sending The army to quell protests, and his could be seen in the August 2011 mass quelling of protest,he is responsible for dividing syria in sectarian lines, destroying infrastructure of syria, only 846 died in Egypt ,5,000 in Syria,the egyptian army was built on national grounds,the syrian army was built based on sectarian background,the egyptian army refused to use force on protesters,they even forced Mubarak to resign,syrian army different ,they obeyed assad's order to shooting protesters,use heavy artillery ,and most who were committing the atrocities where the alawite soldiers,and Assad is really throwing the alawites into the abyss,Assad has led the region to the doors of sectarian war,especially after Hezbollah interference in the fighting,there is really no longer a syrian army it is really now militia vs militia,IP WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE AND STOP VANDALIZING MY PAGE Alhanuty ( talk) 03:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
there was no armed opposition from march to october 2011 it was only peaceful protesting , and notice only assad's media only said there was an armed opposition to sectarianize the protest and scare the alawites from participating in the protest,because you had cities as latikia and baniyas protesting in the beginning of there protest,when he was able to sectarianize the protest,the alawites stopped protesting Alhanuty ( talk) 12:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
collapsing per
WP:NOTFORUM
|
---|
I know the FSA has been formed in July but it was ineffective till October and September where it became effective but funk is saying that the armed opposition existed in march 2011 and maybe before that,which is false. Alhanuty ( talk) 17:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC) IRAN is so responsible ,actually they are the most responsible for how the event went,and Assad is responsible for ordering the army to quell the protest,and the August crackdown best demonstrates that,turkey only gave moral support,the military support began to arrive after the fall of bab al Hawa and al Salam border point, but Iran was sending weapons way before that, for the alawite state,if rebel forces unify and fight with each other they might be able to defeat the alawite state because the alawites will be very exhausted to continue fighting and they already lost human power in the conflict,the Kurds state will be inevitable and the rebels will have to allow self rule for Kurds or other wise the Kurd will separate,and the Kurds will not be exhausted as the alawites Alhanuty ( talk) 17:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I know the FSA has been formed in July but it was ineffective till October and September where it became effective but funk is saying that the armed opposition existed in march 2011 and maybe before that,which is false. Alhanuty ( talk) 17:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC) IRAN is so responsible ,actually they are the most responsible for how the event went,and Assad is responsible for ordering the army to quell the protest,and the August crackdown best demonstrates that,turkey only gave moral support,the military support began to arrive after the fall of bab al Hawa and al Salam border point, but Iran was sending weapons way before that, for the alawite state,if rebel forces unify and fight with each other they might be able to defeat the alawite state because the alawites will be very exhausted to continue fighting and they already lost human power in the conflict,the Kurds state will be inevitable and the rebels will have to allow self rule for Kurds or other wise the Kurd will separate,and the Kurds will not be exhausted as the alawites Alhanuty ( talk) 17:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC) The Geneva 2 will fail,but most likely, the moderate fighters will be armed if the Geneva 2 fails maybe some interference,but most likely the combined Hezbollah government attack will stall after the rebels are armed,and the rebels will be back on the offense by August 2013 Alhanuty ( talk) 18:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
That is a Pseudo article Alhanuty ( talk) 20:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC) |
Is an edit still being suggested? I can't tell from the most-recent chatter. TippyGoomba ( talk) 21:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Before any edit, and to put this "debate" into some kind of context, would not a few simple pointers be most useful? 88.107.54.78 ( talk) 17:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
its not a secret israel is involved in this war [9] Baboon43 ( talk) 00:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The article doesn't seem to have much about the amount of support each side has. This article can be a starting point for adding such information: http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/
PS: To the user who removed this section: I don't understand why you removed this section. I am suggesting a new section about the amount of popular support for each side. Your reason for removal doesn't make any sense. 24.212.193.99 ( talk) 20:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, looking deeply to the sources that claim to know how the revolt started in Deraa I found inconsistent and troubling allegations with only one well known source. For inconsistent, one of the source talk about a no named boy of 17 years old who made a graffiti "now it's your turn bashar". I want to point out this is very weird the name of the boy can not be known of some revolts have been made on the behalf of him. This is preposterous, more if he left the country. And one could ask if it's not an unreliable story. Maybe a rumor spread among people a boy were tortured, I found it very weird a name didn't circulate. The second source, who is not even a journalist, but a kind of blogger with only one article, and of whom you can find no traces around the web states it was a 15 year old boy who made a graffiti "the regime must go down" Which is not exactly the same. So it really looks like a rumor. We call it the Arabic phone, imagine if facts happen a long time ago, thousands of kilometres from here. Klinfran ( talk) 08:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Hamas is allegedly involved in the Syrian civil war now; it is fighting on the side of the FSA. I've been looking for other sources to confirm. Source: [11] I did not add it to the infobox as I suppose it might be controversial and should be discussed first. David O. Johnson ( talk) 21:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Here is another article claiming that a few hundred Hamas fighters are fighting with the FSA [12]; however, Hamas denies it. David O. Johnson ( talk) 00:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
So should Hamas be added to the infobox or not? David O. Johnson ( talk) 04:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
There is more evidence of Hamas involvement: ""Some of the rebels IEDs, as well as the tunnels they built had the markings of Hamas," said Beirut-based journalist Nicholas Blanford, author of Warriors of God: Inside Hezbollah's Thirty-year Struggle Against Israel."" [13] David O. Johnson ( talk) 06:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Is Hamas fighting in Syria or they are just providing support? There is a difference. If they are just providing support, then it should go to this article, and not to this one here. As far as I know, the infobox is just for notorious combatants. Coltsfan ( talk) 17:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
As I stated earlier, there is a report of a few hundred Hamas fighters being involved directly with the war by fighting alongside the FSA. [14] David O. Johnson ( talk) 19:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
The article also states that "A Palestinian source from Lebanon’s Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp said that it was common knowledge that a few hundred Hamas operatives were fighting alongside the FSA in the Yarmouk and Neirab Palestinian camps in Damascus and Aleppo, Syria’s commercial capital." David O. Johnson ( talk) 22:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
One more source is here: [15] David O. Johnson ( talk) 05:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Almost 300k now! i did cut down about 1kb, but that is nothing - we need some serious effort on the structure of the article. I suggest we cut down the initial part of the rebellion (the protests and uprising stage); we may keep the info as a split sub-article - something like "First phase of the Syrian civil war". This would decrease 10-20kb. Suggestions? Greyshark09 ( talk) 08:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
“ | On 19 July, Russia and China vetoed a United Nations resolution that would impose sanctions against the Syrian government, showing again the divide in international opinion towards the conflict. [1] Russia and China, who are major trade allies with Syria, stated that they sought a more balanced resolution calling equally on both sides to halt violence. [2] On the same day, Iraqi officials reported that the FSA had gained control of all four border checkpoints between Syria and Iraq, increasing concerns for the safety of Iraqis trying to escape the violence in Syria. [3] | ” |
Now on the scale of the article about the civil war in general, this is far too much detail and unnecessary information. "Russia and China vetoed a United Nations resolution that would impose sanctions" - yes important fact. "Russia and China, who are major trade allies with Syria" - that has been stated many times already and has already a devoted subsection under "Foreign reaction and involvement" (which also needs to be trimmed and the extra information to be in the linked articles). "FSA had gained control of all four border checkpoints" - too minor to be included in the main article.
And pretty much any part of article can trimmed in this way. D2306 ( talk) 11:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I think it should be noted that currently, without knowledge of the future, it's impossible to know which details in the article will become pertinent and so trimming the article is complex in that something deleted may later become important. Should it not be figured that the article should be larger than the average article due to new facts coming out every day? Surely we won't trim it down every single time something new happens. -- Respite From Revision ( talk) 14:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Alright where do we put daily events? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_civil_war_(from_May_2013) is scheduled for deletion, so please advise me accordingly. Cjblair ( talk) 03:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
In light of Operation al-Shabah, I think it's time to add Iraq on the government side, but as a co-belligerent or something along those lines. Thoughts ? - ☣ Tourbillon A ? 18:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
There has been reports of Turkish security forces finding 2 kilograms of Sarin gas in the hands of Syrian rebels in Turkish media (e.g. http://www.radikal.com.tr/turkiye/sarin_gazi_sonrasi_3_supheli_arac_alarmi-1135662) and also on Russia Today ( http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/).
Does it worth including in the section about chemical weapons? It seems relevant since the section seems to heavy implying that there is no hard evidence of Syrian rebels having access to chemical weapons.
There were also reports about Iraqi security forces finding chemical weapons in the hands of Syrian rebels in some newspapers. 24.212.193.99 ( talk) 07:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
On the left hand side is members of the SNC under "commanders and leaders", but why is this?.
What influence do members of the SNC actually have in Syria?.Is there evidence of any?. 70.48.209.147 ( talk) 21:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Now that the United States has officially announced that they will be providing military support to the rebels shouldn't they be added to the combatant menu at the top of the page as supporters of the rebel-side? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.13.14.145 ( talk) 00:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Israeli defence minister Yaalon says more than 1000 hezbollah fighters heve been killed in Syria. [16] I think the infobox must be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.232.138.217 ( talk) 13:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Under demographics, >generating resentment among some Sunni Muslims,[96] a sect that makes up about three-quarters of Syria's population. However, in the ethno-religious graph right next to this, only 60% are Arab-Sunni. Even when adding in all other Sunnis, it doesn't rise above 70%. I think it'd be more accurate to call it "two thirds", if only by a few percentage points. 70.78.8.194 ( talk) 01:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Under 'Strength' in the infobox, the Syrian Islamic Front was accompanied by the Syrian opposition flag until recently, since it has largely pledged its allegiance to the SMC, but there have been claims by some users that it doesn't operate under that flag, so it has been replaced with its logo, a non-free file, which has since been removed (logically). I think we should figure out whether or not the Syrian Islamic Front is using the opposition flag in the field and how we should mention them in the infobox. Terrortank ( talk) 14:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Latest news, the infobox needs fixing: "The Independent on Sunday has learned that a military decision has been taken in Iran – even before last week’s presidential election – to send a first contingent of 4,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards to Syria to support President Bashar al-Assad’s forces" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-will-send-4000-troops-to-aid-bashar-alassads-forces-in-syria-8660358.html FunkMonk ( talk) 10:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Do we create a new page or just mention on this page?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-60-shia-muslims-massacred-in-rebel-cleansing-of-hatla-8656301.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 ( talk) 03:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The intro reads:
However, human rights groups report that the majority of abuses have been committed by the Syrian government's forces, and UN investigations have concluded that the government's abuses are the greatest in both gravity and scale.[84][85]
This information is from over a year ago and the situation may have changed considerably since then. For example, the jihadist elements within the FSA have strengthened and the organization controls more territory and is better able to carry out atrocities, eg the cannibalism incident.
Please amend the intro paragraph to a neutral statement, such as "both sides have been accused of human rights violations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.248.182 ( talk) 08:00, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
This comment still hasn't received a response.
{{edit semi-protected}}
I also would like an investigation of Sopher99 for protecting the page to avoid NPOV disputes. 71.163.248.182 ( talk) 10:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
And the problem with the request is? For it seems to be asking to change X (concerning, the vast majority of abuses have been committed by the Syrian government) to Y ("both sides have been accused of human rights violations."). Yet again, it appears that someone wants to retain one-sided statements. Is not this a reason to investigate? 78.147.87.49 ( talk) 22:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
P.S: A short while back it was requested that the statement, "archipelago of torture centers", be deleted - since it was one-sided and over the top. Yet again, there was no reply. 78.147.87.49 ( talk) 22:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
“While the vast majority of war crimes and other gross violations continue to be committed by government forces, our research also points to an escalation in abuses by armed opposition groups. " - vast majority- March 2013. [17] Sayerslle ( talk) 23:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Amnesty International is not an independent source and shares executive staff with the State Department. There is no recent evidence to support the claim that a "vast majority" of atrocities are performed by the government. In any case please at least amend the closing paragaph to "While the majority of war crimes and other gross violations continue to be committed by government forces, research also points to an escalation in abuses by armed opposition groups."
78.147, please explain how "both sides have been accused of human rights violations" is a one-sided statement.
Finally, even if we assume that the sentence in question is correct, it's still a POV violation to include it in the introduction without balancing information on the FSA, for instance the fact that the majority of Syrians consider the FSA incapable of governing and support Assad.
New York Times:
"There’s good reason why 55 percent of Syrians polled recently still support Assad. They prefer his (flawed) promise of security and stability to the (untested) opposition’s offer of a democracy enveloped in blood. Assad’s appeal is not that he offers freedom, but security. And by killing mercilessly he illustrates that, like his father’s regime, he will use an iron fist to try to control Syria."
71.163.248.182 ( talk) 16:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Since "both sides have been accused of human rights violations" is a balanced remark, the one-sided statement is the one claiming that the "vast majority of abuses have been committed by the Syrian government." And yet, despite growing evidence of FSA human rights violations, this statement remains unchanged. 2.96.115.55 ( talk) 20:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The statement appears to have been changed by now. Thank you, Sopher.
However you are still deleting the New York times cite provided above, claiming it cites Syrian state TV when it clearly does not. This is dishonest and improper behavior for a moderator, warranting suspension of admin privileges. 71.163.248.182 ( talk) 20:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
The obsolete UN report from 2012 has been re-added by someone into the article without discussion on the talk page. Here are the latest UN statements, which do not directly support their previous claims.
GENEVA — Reporting “new levels of brutality” in Syria’s more than two-year-old conflict, United Nations investigators said on Tuesday that they believed that chemical weapons and more indiscriminate bombing had been used in recent weeks and urged world powers to cut off supplies of weapons that could only result in more civilian casualties.
This more recent report should replace the outdated one. Mustang19 ( talk) 13:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Human rights violations Main article: Human rights violations during the Syrian civil war Weekly deaths over the course of the conflict in Syria (18 March 2011 – 1 March 2013) Human rights violations Main article: Human rights violations during the Syrian civil war Weekly deaths over the course of the conflict in Syria (18 March 2011 – 1 March 2013)
From careful reading of the article on Human Rights Violations, it is clear that the vast majority of the section is out-dated and one-sided. And yet no amount of comments or questioning has led to improvements. Why is this document being protected? 78.147.83.33 ( talk) 21:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Greyshark09 has proposed that we submit a request to Arbcom to create a 1RR Syrian civil war arbitration tool. Does anyone oppose this proposal? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 15:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
I am going to oppose on the grounds that this article is already subject to arbitration. Pug6666 16:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
A good recent article on the various rebel groups, including strength estimations. Machinarium ( talk) 12:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The source [18] for 4000-4500, is for those who allegedely were transported from Qandil to Syrian Kurdistan, not total number of YPG fighters. It is also from early July 2012, as YPG has been intensively training large numbers of new recruits ever since. Recently Salih Muslim said the number is over 15000 [19]. Roboskiye ( talk) 09:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
lets call it a wrap and add "decisive syrian government forces victory" in the infobox. [20] Baboon43 ( talk) 01:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
While a little early to call it a decisive victory, this newsblog gives a strong indication that the Syrian government forces are not doing that badly - thank you. It also points out that, had Assad lost the level support claimed, he would have gone by now. Clearly, this view is not welcome by the FSA cheer-leaders. 78.147.86.72 ( talk) 20:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Why are the threads on the talk page being archived so aggressively? This is the most aggressive archiving that I have ever seen on Wikipedia. Is there a guideline about when it is appropriate to use such aggressive automatic archiving? 24.212.193.99 ( talk) 04:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/20/us-syria-crisis-kurds-idUSBRE95J0TH20130620
more and more proof of PKK involvement (specially after ceasefire with Turkey) -- Reader1987 ( talk) 19:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I think the usual case is to list all belligerents, and there is no reason to omit participation of Syrian and Iranian governments here. For example in North Yemen Civil War article, all participants are listed as "opposing forces". Greyshark09 ( talk) 21:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Azadi Party have their own heading? The way the infobox is setup currently makes it seem as though it is part of the mujahideen, though that is not the case. David O. Johnson ( talk) 05:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)