![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Heres an article that questions the moral legitimacy of the rebels. Does anybody have ideas as to how to incorporate this into the article? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9321068/Channel-4-journalist-Alex-Thomson-says-Syria-rebels-led-me-into-death-trap.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 ( talk) 18:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
-There you go again Sopher, "former assad (sic) soldiers." Your writing is intertwined with propaganda that leads me to question your motives in editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 ( talk) 19:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The Free Syrian army is mostly made up of former Assad soldiers. Its a fact. Logically, I would expect the former Assad soldiers to have a similar mentality as they did serving under Assad. Sopher99 ( talk) 20:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
This IP address if you look at the contributions, is an obvious vandal. Could likely be ChronicalUsual. Jacob102699 ( talk) 18:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
you should put the Syrian Revolutionary Front's number of fighters : 12,000 fighters view here =======> http://jn1.tv/video/news?media_id=28385 — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinxeAdun ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The title has been moved back to "Syrian uprising (2011-present)" by Dpmuk, move discussion was closed as "no consensus". -- Luke (Talk) 02:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC) |
---|
If you want to move it so badly, at least do it properly. There has not been any civil war before it, therefore the year is unnecessary. FunkMonk ( talk) 20:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The German, Italian and some other wikipedias also used the designation of civil war, moreover from 2011! Doncsecz talk 20:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Other civil wars was in the beginning uprisings, or wars againts a other state. The prelude of the Syrian Civil War was the Syrian uprising. Otherwise also the German Wikipedia dated 2011 the start of the Civil War (and the prelude is the uprising). Doncsecz talk 06:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC) |
The article is over 180k characters long, and warrants an extensive lede. Besides the lede has already been discussed and established by concensus 2 months ago.
Further more I see total hypocrisy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Egyptian_revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War_(2011–present)
I7laseral ( talk) 17:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the lede, are all the mentions of United Nations, Arab League,European Union, Gulf states, China, Russia, Lebanon, Jordan really that useful for the lede? The both observing missions seem also being from the past.-- Maldonado91 ( talk) 17:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I've added this recent development to the article. I'm wondering how people think this should be incorporated into the article/infobox if this escalates further or if it should be split. Obviously if NATO got involved completely, we would probably have an article like the one about the international intervention in Libya, but it will probably remain a diplomatic crisis before anything of that scale potentially happens. Hello32020 ( talk) 22:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I have place it in the infobox, as a opposition casualtie since the aircraft was flying in syrian airspace, probably gathering intelligence for the opposition, which is harbored and funded partially by Turkey.--
Maldonado91 (
talk) 10:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
This is analyst search http://www.examiner. com/article/turkey-caught-peeking-syria-s-back-yard?cid=rss-- Maldonado91 ( talk) 14:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Don't exclude possibility they were trying to provoke the Syrians. EkoGraf ( talk) 14:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it was possibly to test the newly russian supplied and trained syrian air defenses. Anyway, Turkey is supporting rebels and I doubt very higly that without this context , this Turkish fighter aircraft whould have been downed. -- Maldonado91 ( talk) 14:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
It was shot 1km off the syrian coast. -- Maldonado91 ( talk) 15:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
this video [1] might show the shootdown, and provide some indication whether turkish or syrian side are right on the location - I don't know if this is a good source Karpaat ( talk) 15:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Is this real? So now an admin can say no consensus by removing each vote he does not like? Has Wikipedia adopted Laurent Gbagbo or Egyptian constitutional court methods? I believe this is a case of admin abuse and that the process should be restarted properly -- Maldonado91 ( talk) 08:24, 24 June 2012 (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 uprising (2011–present) → Syrian Civil War –
The precedent move had a large and vast consensus in favour of a move. But it appear that using some confusion about the organization of the process, an admin blocked the move per WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. So let's rebegin the process without making any mistakes, for clearly showing the wide consensus here on Wikipedia.
I think we need moves to be explained:
Officials sources calling it civil war:
French official calls it civil war. The chief of UN monitors calls it civil war.
Media sources calling it civil war:
The shift in the use of the name has been very heavy.
Here a comparator of searches between "Syria civil war" and "Syria Uprising" http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Syria+Civil+War&word2=Syria+Uprising. The terms Syria civil war is a lot more used over the web.
And finally, the definition:
The conflict is a civil war per Wikipedia definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war
And between all online dictionnaries: 1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.
civil war noun :a war between political factions or regions within the same country.
And what is a war? a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties
There is everything: Officials, common name, proper definition. And there is also consensus. Let making it again so the admin can't ignore it this time. -- Maldonado91 ( talk) 08:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
There are some issues there. Why for example is Hezbollah, and not Russia, listed as supporting Syria? Hezbollah is only one of a myriad of Lebanese groups supporting the government (there are Christian and even Sunni groups that support them), why should they be listed over anyone else? And there are now reports that the CIA are helping the FSA in Turkey, so the US is directly involved too. FunkMonk ( talk) 13:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Russia is not funding, nor supporting Syria. They are not funding Syria, they have a customer relation with this country and do not provide any fund unlike Saudi Arabia, United States and Turkey. Someone removeed the United States mention... -- Maldonado91 ( talk) 13:50, 24 June 2012 (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.
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22Syria+Civil+War%22&word2=%22Syria+Uprising%22
The winner is now Syria Uprising.
The victory becomes even more conclusive when you do this 'battle' (Syria ——> Syrian):
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22Syrian+Civil+War%22&word2=%22Syrian+Uprising%22
By leaving out the double quotes, one is partially weighting the comparison of terms by whether the word war is more common than uprising, regardless of context. This is not the relevant comparison. Fanzine999 ( talk) 14:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Only ONE F4-Phantom is missing, not two. Please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.111.116 ( talk) 19:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
It does not say 2 F4 Phantoms shot down and missing, it says 2 F4 Phantom pilots shot down and missing. Read carefully please before asking for and edit. EkoGraf ( talk) 23:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Full protect 3 days, move protected 2 days, to let things iron out, due to multiple requests. Please use this time to discuss, find consensus, move forward. Any admin is free to modify this protection in any way without permission. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
It's a civil war now and it is called "civil war" by more and more media and politicians. So let's move the article to "Syrian civil war"! - Metron ( talk) 18:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
more and more media such as? I7laseral ( talk) 02:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
no,the FSA controls alot of territory along the turkish and lebonanese borders,and the proof is that they can't even free the kidnapped lebonanese — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.200.186 ( talk) 01:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
UN Officials are now calling it a civil war http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/06/12/annan-says-syria-conflict-is-now-civil-war/. Does it count now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.14.28 ( talk) 17:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The Syrian regime is now calling it a "state of war" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18598533 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.254.239 ( talk) 02:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
It is not permitted to post any points of view that the uprising is not spontaneous but is the result of long and careful preparation by the US / NATO / CIA. Like in other color revolutions, The opposition consists of US sponsored NGO's like NED, National Endowment for Democracy. The fighters are mercenaries, CIA foreign legion, who infiltrate into Syria over the Turkish border - the Free Syrian Army is not from Syria. Websites like globalresearch.ca, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29234 http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/ http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com.au/ http://www.voltairenet.org/NATO-preparing-vast-disinformation or http://tarpley.net/2012/06/12/russia-reportedly-preparing-divisions-for-deployment-to-syria/ are replete with details on this alternative explanation of events, but it is taboo, censored and banned from mention on Wikipedia. Therefore this page should be marked NEUTRALITY DISPUTED. JPLeonard ( talk) 06:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
alot of news reports confirm that the free syrian army is gaining the upper hand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.200.186 ( talk) 21:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
alot of independent reports confirmed that the free syrian army control 60% of syria mostly rural areas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
but reports confirm that the free syrian army control vast areas and they have the upper hand [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty ( talk • contribs) 04:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Last March, under the heading "Support for the Opposition" I wrote:
"On March 5, U.S. Senator and former Republican Presidential candidate John McCain said that America should bomb the Assad regime, support the Syrian opposition, and defend civilians from government attacks."
I cited an article from the New York Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/middleeast/syria-permits-united-nations-visit-but-escalates-effort-to-crush-opposition.html)
McCain also said in another speech “At the request of the Syrian National Council, the Free Syrian Army, and Local Coordinating Committees inside the country, the United States should lead an international effort to protect key population centers in Syria, especially in the north, through airstrikes on Assad’s forces. To be clear: This will require the United States to suppress enemy air defenses in at least part of the country."
McCain is a major politician in the U.S. and the U.S. is a major power, so why was his vocal support for intervention on behalf of the opposition deleted from the "Support for the Opposition" section? If there is a good reason, someone plz explain. FrogTrain ( talk) 01:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)FrogTrain
The relevant material will consist only of the actual policies being implemented by actors in a position to have an effect on the course of the crisis—be that the Obama Administration, the Russian government, the Chinese government, the Gulf states, neighbouring countries, the Syrian government, other Syrian groups, the UN, human rights organisations, and so on (already quite a list, without mentioning opinions of people in no position to affect anything)—the effects of those policies on the crisis, and the opinions and stories of the most important people: those on the receiving end of said policies (and who are themselves powerful actors), namely the Syrian people. I therefore believe McCain's thoughts on Syria would better placed on his Wikipedia article. Fanzine999 ( talk) 03:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Request the following be added to the end of the section titled "Renewed fighting", concerning developments of the downing of a Turkish jet by Syria:
Thanks. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 14:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
the Free Syrian Army has planned a plan called the zero hour plan,this plan is like the Libyan rebels plan when they got out of the western mountains to the capital Tripoli,in this plan they will called all people to uprising and burn all government post (including airports) of the Syrian regime's as the Egyptians did in the beginning of their revolution and all people will uprise in the same time so that the army can't afford to send the military because they can never send the military to all cities and towns and villages in Syria,and that all force still in the Syrian army sympathies with the revolution will join the opposition and it like going to be like like what the Libyan protesters did in Benghazi when they took control of all government posts in the city,and all forces of the opposition will then go to liberate Damascus beginning with an uprising in the capital then all forces from the areas around Damascus will attack from all four direction,my question could this plan work out and what is the possibility for the success of the plan ,I appreciated anyone commenting ( Alhanuty ( talk) 16:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC))
Has Wikipedia turned into a conscpiracionist blog? The last few talk sections on this page are very poor.-- Maldonado91 ( talk) 17:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
they did it in Libya because the Libyan arny was collapsing and after the tactic change the rebels did in their strategy, they where able to break out and enter the capital ,the NATO airstrike could be considered a secondary reason for the rebels victory,but NATO really wasn't the reason for the rebel breakout ,it was the rebel tactic change by by attacking from behind Qaddafi's army lines (ie.attacking from two sides the rebels inside the Qaddafi's territory and the rebel's from rebel's territory) and the prove is even when the nato bombardment was strong, Qaddafi's forces didn't crumble under the airstrike's pressure ,they collapsed when rebels attacked from inside and outside. ( Alhanuty ( talk) 20:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC))
Can we agree finally that Russia is not supporting Syria? They are selling weapons, not providing funds and weapons like Saudi Arabia, United States and Turkey are doing. Russia says that they are politically neutral, that they are willing to talk to both parts, that both are equally to blame. They reject any foreign intervention because they defend the principle of state sovereignity. They are not like Iran supporting Syria. It is the same for China -- Maldonado91 ( talk) 18:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
What Russia is doing is something that they have been doing for decades and is within a legal framework, simple customer-supplier service, independent of support or not. They are fullfilling their contracts that were set years before the conflict. While Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are funding and arming the opposition in an illegal framework. And also, Russia itself has said they do not support Syria, but they do support a bilateraly, not unilateraly, agreed end to the fighting. Which is common sense. EkoGraf ( talk) 19:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Those helicopters were and are Syrian military property, they are only being returned back. EkoGraf ( talk) 23:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
i suggest that there should be a map showing the areas under the control of the free syrian army and the syrian army,as in libya,because there is reports of that the free syrian army controls alot of areas in syrian ,so i suggest that somrone should make a map showing it,i welcome anyone who makes the map or comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty ( talk • contribs) 04:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
That is impossible at the moment. Because in Libya we had solid frontlines. In Syria the front is fluid and nobody knows which are is under whose control. You got scattered villages and small towns in Idlib reportedly under rebel control, but the military surrounds them, or viceversa where the military controls the large cities but the rebels are on the outskirts. Not possible at the moment. Maybe in a few months when the situation becomes more clear. EkoGraf ( talk) 13:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
then why there is a map for the fighting in homs ( Alhanuty ( talk) 03:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)).
Now, im not advocating changing the title to civil war, as efforts at that keep getting shot down. But now that even Assad seems to realise his country is in a civil war is there more likely to be a consensus reached on name change? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/26/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE85D0IS20120626 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kspence92 ( talk • contribs) 21:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not just some guy. It's the head of the UN observer mission who is a veteran soldier and the French foreign minister who speaks for France. And not to mention that the president of Syria himself is now calling it a war. You can't just dismiss all three of them like that, that's simply not a neutral POV. EkoGraf ( talk) 23:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Support: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/26/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t1. - "We are in a state of real war, in every aspect of the words, and when we're in a state of war, all of our politics has to be concentrated on winning this war," President Bashar al-Assad told his cabinet during a speech about the economy and domestic issues in which he called for unity to make the country strong. This was the front page article on CNN international edition (and concurrent with front page coverage in BBC news). With all due respect, most global news organizations are characterizing Syria as being in a state of war right now. This has happened only in the last 24 hours, which is why before I would not have characterized such conflict as a "civil war", in agreement with FunkMonk. Shall we do a new vote regarding consensus to move? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.158.217 ( talk) 00:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Assad didn't say his country is in a state of civil war. He said it's in a real state of war from all angles, a reference to Western help for the rebels and the Syrian airspace incursion by a Turkish fighter jet. Civil war is neither what he said, nor what he meant. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 13:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This page reference the state of Qatar as "Economic and military support" of one of the belligerent. Therefore, as Al Jazeera is a Qatari state-owned broadcaster, its neutrality can be debated. Therefore, to make sure this article present a neutral point of view, I suggest the removal of all references to Al Jazeera publications and suppression of all text part referenced by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.134.82 ( talk) 13:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
In the infobox, it says Iran and Hezbollah are providing economic and military support for the Syrian Armed Forces. Do we have any solid reliable sources to back that statement up? That goes for Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar as well for the Syrian opposition. -- Luke (Talk) 02:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Google is your friend. You will have millions of answer if you search about Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. You really should have done a quick search before posting this.-- Maldonado91 ( talk) 22:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Somebody changed the title of the infobox to "Syrian Civil War", while the title of the article is still "Syrian uprising (2011–present)". This needs to be changed back. Also someone added Russia under "Economic and military support" for the Syrian regime. I don't recall a consensus for that either. -- Futuretrillionaire 01:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futuretrillionaire ( talk • contribs)
why there is alot of reference errors
there alot of information erased from the article can some one fix it .( Alhanuty ( talk) 20:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC))
This editor has made 60 contributions in less than 9 hours , completely changing and rampaging the page as he wanted. He deleted whole parts ot the page and expanded other without any balance. The unreal number of his contrbitutions and their size make it nearly impossible to understand that as a whole and to check it individually. But he does not seem a very balanced editor and other should review very carefully all of his deletions and additions. It will not be easy seeing he has nothing else to do apparently.-- Maldonado91 ( talk) 09:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
CNN, a major RS, is now calling it a civil war. [5]. Jacob102699 ( talk) 15:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
In the "Arab Spring" Wikipedia page, some one changed the map and chart in the "overview" section, calling Syrian crisis a civil war. However, in the "Syrian uprising (2011-present)" talk page, there has been no consensus on changing the name of the conflict to Syrian civil war. The map and chart needs to be changed back. I've added this notice to the "Arab spring" talk page as well. --Futuretrillionaire 17:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
As alternatives to restarting requested-move discussions or reverting page moves:
— P.T. Aufrette ( talk) 17:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I have now changed my mind. I just read that Bashar al-Assad has, just now, stated that Syria is, indeed, in a civil war. Therefore, I now completely support moving this article, as soon as possible. SuperHero2111 ( talk) 05:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, here is the link: [8] And, also, I am sorry for that initial post. I had no idea that there was already a discussion, about this. Sorry! SuperHero2111 ( talk) 05:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, in my opinion, if this isn't a civil war, then, the Libyan uprising isn't a war, either. SuperHero2111 ( talk) 04:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Syrian government orchestrates car bombing to kill about 80 in anti-assad funeral in Zamalka. Sana of course does not report it. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/06/more-than-70-killed-by-car-bombing-at-funeral-in-syrian-town.html Still have doubts that the Syrian government can't be the orient of these "bombings" they happen to experience when monitors are around? Sopher99 ( talk) 09:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
With a slew of RS that we use commonly in this article, now calling it a civil war, we should reinstate a vote. How about this time a simple Support/Oppose vote (yes or nov vote). No lengthy explanation or comments. Just whether you agree that because a dozen of the top 20 English RS now call it a civil war, the article should be changed too. (not to mention the French foreign ministry, the UN Human rights spokesmen, the UN piece keeping chief, and arguably assad himself). Sopher99 ( talk) 10:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. EkoGraf ( talk) 13:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
No damages regarding armored tanks/vehicles, MiGs(if any), Cannons, etc have been listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarificationgiven ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Because there are no sources. EkoGraf ( talk) 13:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I have created a military infobox to go with the rename. For the moment, I Have kept the civil box right under the new box. Should the civil box be removed completely or kept at this place?-- Maldonado91 ( talk) 10:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the civil box should be removed. This has evolved into an armed conflict with only a few civilian aspects left. EkoGraf ( talk) 12:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I Agree with EkoGraf because the opposition's fighters are mostly composed of civilians and 85,000 Army Defectors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinxeAdun ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The Syrian map of the Arab spring Should be changed into red and must have an ongoing civil war legend — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinxeAdun ( talk • contribs) 12:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Still...the Turks are turning a blind eye to the shipment of arms and fighters over their border to the rebels. And are housing and guarding the rebels military command. EkoGraf ( talk) 14:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The dispute is over by consensus process I think. To answer Vojvodae, the fund and support category make it clear that there is no "huge war in middle east" -- Maldonado91 ( talk) 15:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, your reason is not logical Luk3, military conflict infoboxes are used for uprisings as well cause they are also of an armed nature. EkoGraf ( talk) 14:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
It looks like bloody mess. I shall keep my hands away from it for at least week to see what consensus will be established, but IMO Funded and supported states should be removed, otherwise you can easily add UK, France and USA to opposition side (all admit to sending non-lethal equipment) and Russia, North Korea and China on government side. Result is that you just invented third world war. EllsworthSK ( talk) 15:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The Washington post source at the same time confirms that 10 percent of the FSA fighters are foreign. They even cite a number of 500-900. That is not a small number and their role in the conflict has been talked about at length in many recent articles. Yes, Fatah al-Islam's group was estimated to be just 30 back in March-April and that is not much. However, recently there was an article that stated almost all of the Lebanese fighters joining the FSA are under the overall command of Fatah. And the Lebanese are estimated to be around 300 and rising. Also, the presence of Fatah is notable given they were the main instigator of the Lebanese conflict from 2007 so are thus a Lebanese player. Overall the presence of the foreigners, though still only estimated to be 10 percent of the rebels, is still highly notable. It's being mentioned constantly in the media as being the main fear of not just the various governments who barely support the rebels but of the rebels themselves. Just today there was a CNN report in which an FSA commander confirmed the foreign presence is still small but that he is highly concerned that their numbers are rising. So the foreigners are a combatant in the conflict however you look at it. EkoGraf ( talk) 17:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
If you would check the Iraq war article you would see that the contractors are in the infobox there and their number was in fact 6,000-7,000 and not just several hundred as you say. Also, I disagree that only a few dozen were under enemy fire. The Iraq infobox clearly lists more than 1,500 to have died in the war. Let me get right down to it. The foreign fighters are there, they are almost a thousand strong and the number is rising, they operate only nominally under the FSA (who don't want to have anything to do with them and are thus basically separate from them), they are talked about in the media at least once a week if not more, and the foreign guys are behind several of the mass suicide bombings which have been reported on extensively (confirmed on at least one occasion by the UN chief Ban Ki Mun). All that fits the criteria of notability. And everything is properly referenced with reliable sources. Notability and verifiability, prime principles of Wikipedia. I don't see how it causes the infobox to be unbalanced. I will try to look up that source you requested, but it was almost a month since I read that article. Cheers! EkoGraf ( talk) 00:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Hezbollah is known to provide some sort of political support for the Syrian government. But come on... You can't really include Hezbollah casualties since "yalibnan.com" states so? That site is well known to be against the Hezbollah and Iran in general and provides a lot of materials with no substance. Where's the source criticism on Wikipedia that is usually of a high standard here??!
If you intend to keep it, at least move it to another section and put it as "allegation of militarily involvement". Because, quite frankly, those who reads this page won't check if this is true or not. They will just believe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.185.238 ( talk) 16:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Most of what is in this article is based on opposition sources which are against the Syrian government, but we still use them. Besides, the other source is Stratfor. EkoGraf ( talk) 19:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Most of everything in the article are "claims", nothing is definetly confirmed. All depends on a person's point of view. The number of government troops killed is based on an opposition source which is anti-Assad thus not neutral but we still use it. If you feel so strongly about it we can add next to the numbers that those are opposition claims (all figures came from defecting soldiers that joined the FSA) so the reader can form his own point of view. I will add to the infobox who is claiming it. Besides, these are just the only sources that have given a definite number of Hezbollah and Iranian dead. The FSA and the SNC have been saying for almost a year that Iranians and Hezbollah are in the field, which can be found in dozens of sources. And so based on this I am noting in the infobox it is based on opposition claims. EkoGraf ( talk) 22:16, 5 July 2012 (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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Heres an article that questions the moral legitimacy of the rebels. Does anybody have ideas as to how to incorporate this into the article? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9321068/Channel-4-journalist-Alex-Thomson-says-Syria-rebels-led-me-into-death-trap.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 ( talk) 18:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
-There you go again Sopher, "former assad (sic) soldiers." Your writing is intertwined with propaganda that leads me to question your motives in editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 ( talk) 19:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
The Free Syrian army is mostly made up of former Assad soldiers. Its a fact. Logically, I would expect the former Assad soldiers to have a similar mentality as they did serving under Assad. Sopher99 ( talk) 20:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
This IP address if you look at the contributions, is an obvious vandal. Could likely be ChronicalUsual. Jacob102699 ( talk) 18:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
you should put the Syrian Revolutionary Front's number of fighters : 12,000 fighters view here =======> http://jn1.tv/video/news?media_id=28385 — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinxeAdun ( talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The title has been moved back to "Syrian uprising (2011-present)" by Dpmuk, move discussion was closed as "no consensus". -- Luke (Talk) 02:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC) |
---|
If you want to move it so badly, at least do it properly. There has not been any civil war before it, therefore the year is unnecessary. FunkMonk ( talk) 20:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The German, Italian and some other wikipedias also used the designation of civil war, moreover from 2011! Doncsecz talk 20:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Other civil wars was in the beginning uprisings, or wars againts a other state. The prelude of the Syrian Civil War was the Syrian uprising. Otherwise also the German Wikipedia dated 2011 the start of the Civil War (and the prelude is the uprising). Doncsecz talk 06:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC) |
The article is over 180k characters long, and warrants an extensive lede. Besides the lede has already been discussed and established by concensus 2 months ago.
Further more I see total hypocrisy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Egyptian_revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Civil_War_(2011–present)
I7laseral ( talk) 17:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding the lede, are all the mentions of United Nations, Arab League,European Union, Gulf states, China, Russia, Lebanon, Jordan really that useful for the lede? The both observing missions seem also being from the past.-- Maldonado91 ( talk) 17:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I've added this recent development to the article. I'm wondering how people think this should be incorporated into the article/infobox if this escalates further or if it should be split. Obviously if NATO got involved completely, we would probably have an article like the one about the international intervention in Libya, but it will probably remain a diplomatic crisis before anything of that scale potentially happens. Hello32020 ( talk) 22:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I have place it in the infobox, as a opposition casualtie since the aircraft was flying in syrian airspace, probably gathering intelligence for the opposition, which is harbored and funded partially by Turkey.--
Maldonado91 (
talk) 10:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
This is analyst search http://www.examiner. com/article/turkey-caught-peeking-syria-s-back-yard?cid=rss-- Maldonado91 ( talk) 14:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Don't exclude possibility they were trying to provoke the Syrians. EkoGraf ( talk) 14:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it was possibly to test the newly russian supplied and trained syrian air defenses. Anyway, Turkey is supporting rebels and I doubt very higly that without this context , this Turkish fighter aircraft whould have been downed. -- Maldonado91 ( talk) 14:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
It was shot 1km off the syrian coast. -- Maldonado91 ( talk) 15:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
this video [1] might show the shootdown, and provide some indication whether turkish or syrian side are right on the location - I don't know if this is a good source Karpaat ( talk) 15:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Is this real? So now an admin can say no consensus by removing each vote he does not like? Has Wikipedia adopted Laurent Gbagbo or Egyptian constitutional court methods? I believe this is a case of admin abuse and that the process should be restarted properly -- Maldonado91 ( talk) 08:24, 24 June 2012 (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 uprising (2011–present) → Syrian Civil War –
The precedent move had a large and vast consensus in favour of a move. But it appear that using some confusion about the organization of the process, an admin blocked the move per WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. So let's rebegin the process without making any mistakes, for clearly showing the wide consensus here on Wikipedia.
I think we need moves to be explained:
Officials sources calling it civil war:
French official calls it civil war. The chief of UN monitors calls it civil war.
Media sources calling it civil war:
The shift in the use of the name has been very heavy.
Here a comparator of searches between "Syria civil war" and "Syria Uprising" http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Syria+Civil+War&word2=Syria+Uprising. The terms Syria civil war is a lot more used over the web.
And finally, the definition:
The conflict is a civil war per Wikipedia definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war
And between all online dictionnaries: 1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.
civil war noun :a war between political factions or regions within the same country.
And what is a war? a. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties
There is everything: Officials, common name, proper definition. And there is also consensus. Let making it again so the admin can't ignore it this time. -- Maldonado91 ( talk) 08:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
There are some issues there. Why for example is Hezbollah, and not Russia, listed as supporting Syria? Hezbollah is only one of a myriad of Lebanese groups supporting the government (there are Christian and even Sunni groups that support them), why should they be listed over anyone else? And there are now reports that the CIA are helping the FSA in Turkey, so the US is directly involved too. FunkMonk ( talk) 13:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Russia is not funding, nor supporting Syria. They are not funding Syria, they have a customer relation with this country and do not provide any fund unlike Saudi Arabia, United States and Turkey. Someone removeed the United States mention... -- Maldonado91 ( talk) 13:50, 24 June 2012 (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.
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22Syria+Civil+War%22&word2=%22Syria+Uprising%22
The winner is now Syria Uprising.
The victory becomes even more conclusive when you do this 'battle' (Syria ——> Syrian):
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22Syrian+Civil+War%22&word2=%22Syrian+Uprising%22
By leaving out the double quotes, one is partially weighting the comparison of terms by whether the word war is more common than uprising, regardless of context. This is not the relevant comparison. Fanzine999 ( talk) 14:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Only ONE F4-Phantom is missing, not two. Please correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.111.116 ( talk) 19:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
It does not say 2 F4 Phantoms shot down and missing, it says 2 F4 Phantom pilots shot down and missing. Read carefully please before asking for and edit. EkoGraf ( talk) 23:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Full protect 3 days, move protected 2 days, to let things iron out, due to multiple requests. Please use this time to discuss, find consensus, move forward. Any admin is free to modify this protection in any way without permission. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
It's a civil war now and it is called "civil war" by more and more media and politicians. So let's move the article to "Syrian civil war"! - Metron ( talk) 18:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
more and more media such as? I7laseral ( talk) 02:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
no,the FSA controls alot of territory along the turkish and lebonanese borders,and the proof is that they can't even free the kidnapped lebonanese — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.200.186 ( talk) 01:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
UN Officials are now calling it a civil war http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/06/12/annan-says-syria-conflict-is-now-civil-war/. Does it count now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.14.28 ( talk) 17:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
The Syrian regime is now calling it a "state of war" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18598533 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.254.239 ( talk) 02:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
It is not permitted to post any points of view that the uprising is not spontaneous but is the result of long and careful preparation by the US / NATO / CIA. Like in other color revolutions, The opposition consists of US sponsored NGO's like NED, National Endowment for Democracy. The fighters are mercenaries, CIA foreign legion, who infiltrate into Syria over the Turkish border - the Free Syrian Army is not from Syria. Websites like globalresearch.ca, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29234 http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/ http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com.au/ http://www.voltairenet.org/NATO-preparing-vast-disinformation or http://tarpley.net/2012/06/12/russia-reportedly-preparing-divisions-for-deployment-to-syria/ are replete with details on this alternative explanation of events, but it is taboo, censored and banned from mention on Wikipedia. Therefore this page should be marked NEUTRALITY DISPUTED. JPLeonard ( talk) 06:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
alot of news reports confirm that the free syrian army is gaining the upper hand — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.200.186 ( talk) 21:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
alot of independent reports confirmed that the free syrian army control 60% of syria mostly rural areas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty ( talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
but reports confirm that the free syrian army control vast areas and they have the upper hand [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty ( talk • contribs) 04:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Last March, under the heading "Support for the Opposition" I wrote:
"On March 5, U.S. Senator and former Republican Presidential candidate John McCain said that America should bomb the Assad regime, support the Syrian opposition, and defend civilians from government attacks."
I cited an article from the New York Times ( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/06/world/middleeast/syria-permits-united-nations-visit-but-escalates-effort-to-crush-opposition.html)
McCain also said in another speech “At the request of the Syrian National Council, the Free Syrian Army, and Local Coordinating Committees inside the country, the United States should lead an international effort to protect key population centers in Syria, especially in the north, through airstrikes on Assad’s forces. To be clear: This will require the United States to suppress enemy air defenses in at least part of the country."
McCain is a major politician in the U.S. and the U.S. is a major power, so why was his vocal support for intervention on behalf of the opposition deleted from the "Support for the Opposition" section? If there is a good reason, someone plz explain. FrogTrain ( talk) 01:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)FrogTrain
The relevant material will consist only of the actual policies being implemented by actors in a position to have an effect on the course of the crisis—be that the Obama Administration, the Russian government, the Chinese government, the Gulf states, neighbouring countries, the Syrian government, other Syrian groups, the UN, human rights organisations, and so on (already quite a list, without mentioning opinions of people in no position to affect anything)—the effects of those policies on the crisis, and the opinions and stories of the most important people: those on the receiving end of said policies (and who are themselves powerful actors), namely the Syrian people. I therefore believe McCain's thoughts on Syria would better placed on his Wikipedia article. Fanzine999 ( talk) 03:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Request the following be added to the end of the section titled "Renewed fighting", concerning developments of the downing of a Turkish jet by Syria:
Thanks. -- Green Cardamom ( talk) 14:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
the Free Syrian Army has planned a plan called the zero hour plan,this plan is like the Libyan rebels plan when they got out of the western mountains to the capital Tripoli,in this plan they will called all people to uprising and burn all government post (including airports) of the Syrian regime's as the Egyptians did in the beginning of their revolution and all people will uprise in the same time so that the army can't afford to send the military because they can never send the military to all cities and towns and villages in Syria,and that all force still in the Syrian army sympathies with the revolution will join the opposition and it like going to be like like what the Libyan protesters did in Benghazi when they took control of all government posts in the city,and all forces of the opposition will then go to liberate Damascus beginning with an uprising in the capital then all forces from the areas around Damascus will attack from all four direction,my question could this plan work out and what is the possibility for the success of the plan ,I appreciated anyone commenting ( Alhanuty ( talk) 16:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC))
Has Wikipedia turned into a conscpiracionist blog? The last few talk sections on this page are very poor.-- Maldonado91 ( talk) 17:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
they did it in Libya because the Libyan arny was collapsing and after the tactic change the rebels did in their strategy, they where able to break out and enter the capital ,the NATO airstrike could be considered a secondary reason for the rebels victory,but NATO really wasn't the reason for the rebel breakout ,it was the rebel tactic change by by attacking from behind Qaddafi's army lines (ie.attacking from two sides the rebels inside the Qaddafi's territory and the rebel's from rebel's territory) and the prove is even when the nato bombardment was strong, Qaddafi's forces didn't crumble under the airstrike's pressure ,they collapsed when rebels attacked from inside and outside. ( Alhanuty ( talk) 20:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC))
Can we agree finally that Russia is not supporting Syria? They are selling weapons, not providing funds and weapons like Saudi Arabia, United States and Turkey are doing. Russia says that they are politically neutral, that they are willing to talk to both parts, that both are equally to blame. They reject any foreign intervention because they defend the principle of state sovereignity. They are not like Iran supporting Syria. It is the same for China -- Maldonado91 ( talk) 18:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
What Russia is doing is something that they have been doing for decades and is within a legal framework, simple customer-supplier service, independent of support or not. They are fullfilling their contracts that were set years before the conflict. While Qatar, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are funding and arming the opposition in an illegal framework. And also, Russia itself has said they do not support Syria, but they do support a bilateraly, not unilateraly, agreed end to the fighting. Which is common sense. EkoGraf ( talk) 19:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Those helicopters were and are Syrian military property, they are only being returned back. EkoGraf ( talk) 23:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
i suggest that there should be a map showing the areas under the control of the free syrian army and the syrian army,as in libya,because there is reports of that the free syrian army controls alot of areas in syrian ,so i suggest that somrone should make a map showing it,i welcome anyone who makes the map or comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty ( talk • contribs) 04:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
That is impossible at the moment. Because in Libya we had solid frontlines. In Syria the front is fluid and nobody knows which are is under whose control. You got scattered villages and small towns in Idlib reportedly under rebel control, but the military surrounds them, or viceversa where the military controls the large cities but the rebels are on the outskirts. Not possible at the moment. Maybe in a few months when the situation becomes more clear. EkoGraf ( talk) 13:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
then why there is a map for the fighting in homs ( Alhanuty ( talk) 03:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)).
Now, im not advocating changing the title to civil war, as efforts at that keep getting shot down. But now that even Assad seems to realise his country is in a civil war is there more likely to be a consensus reached on name change? http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/26/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE85D0IS20120626 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kspence92 ( talk • contribs) 21:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
It's not just some guy. It's the head of the UN observer mission who is a veteran soldier and the French foreign minister who speaks for France. And not to mention that the president of Syria himself is now calling it a war. You can't just dismiss all three of them like that, that's simply not a neutral POV. EkoGraf ( talk) 23:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Support: http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/26/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t1. - "We are in a state of real war, in every aspect of the words, and when we're in a state of war, all of our politics has to be concentrated on winning this war," President Bashar al-Assad told his cabinet during a speech about the economy and domestic issues in which he called for unity to make the country strong. This was the front page article on CNN international edition (and concurrent with front page coverage in BBC news). With all due respect, most global news organizations are characterizing Syria as being in a state of war right now. This has happened only in the last 24 hours, which is why before I would not have characterized such conflict as a "civil war", in agreement with FunkMonk. Shall we do a new vote regarding consensus to move? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.158.217 ( talk) 00:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Assad didn't say his country is in a state of civil war. He said it's in a real state of war from all angles, a reference to Western help for the rebels and the Syrian airspace incursion by a Turkish fighter jet. Civil war is neither what he said, nor what he meant. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 13:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This page reference the state of Qatar as "Economic and military support" of one of the belligerent. Therefore, as Al Jazeera is a Qatari state-owned broadcaster, its neutrality can be debated. Therefore, to make sure this article present a neutral point of view, I suggest the removal of all references to Al Jazeera publications and suppression of all text part referenced by them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.134.82 ( talk) 13:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
In the infobox, it says Iran and Hezbollah are providing economic and military support for the Syrian Armed Forces. Do we have any solid reliable sources to back that statement up? That goes for Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar as well for the Syrian opposition. -- Luke (Talk) 02:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Google is your friend. You will have millions of answer if you search about Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. You really should have done a quick search before posting this.-- Maldonado91 ( talk) 22:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Somebody changed the title of the infobox to "Syrian Civil War", while the title of the article is still "Syrian uprising (2011–present)". This needs to be changed back. Also someone added Russia under "Economic and military support" for the Syrian regime. I don't recall a consensus for that either. -- Futuretrillionaire 01:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futuretrillionaire ( talk • contribs)
why there is alot of reference errors
there alot of information erased from the article can some one fix it .( Alhanuty ( talk) 20:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC))
This editor has made 60 contributions in less than 9 hours , completely changing and rampaging the page as he wanted. He deleted whole parts ot the page and expanded other without any balance. The unreal number of his contrbitutions and their size make it nearly impossible to understand that as a whole and to check it individually. But he does not seem a very balanced editor and other should review very carefully all of his deletions and additions. It will not be easy seeing he has nothing else to do apparently.-- Maldonado91 ( talk) 09:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
CNN, a major RS, is now calling it a civil war. [5]. Jacob102699 ( talk) 15:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
In the "Arab Spring" Wikipedia page, some one changed the map and chart in the "overview" section, calling Syrian crisis a civil war. However, in the "Syrian uprising (2011-present)" talk page, there has been no consensus on changing the name of the conflict to Syrian civil war. The map and chart needs to be changed back. I've added this notice to the "Arab spring" talk page as well. --Futuretrillionaire 17:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
As alternatives to restarting requested-move discussions or reverting page moves:
— P.T. Aufrette ( talk) 17:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I have now changed my mind. I just read that Bashar al-Assad has, just now, stated that Syria is, indeed, in a civil war. Therefore, I now completely support moving this article, as soon as possible. SuperHero2111 ( talk) 05:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, here is the link: [8] And, also, I am sorry for that initial post. I had no idea that there was already a discussion, about this. Sorry! SuperHero2111 ( talk) 05:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, in my opinion, if this isn't a civil war, then, the Libyan uprising isn't a war, either. SuperHero2111 ( talk) 04:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Syrian government orchestrates car bombing to kill about 80 in anti-assad funeral in Zamalka. Sana of course does not report it. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/06/more-than-70-killed-by-car-bombing-at-funeral-in-syrian-town.html Still have doubts that the Syrian government can't be the orient of these "bombings" they happen to experience when monitors are around? Sopher99 ( talk) 09:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
With a slew of RS that we use commonly in this article, now calling it a civil war, we should reinstate a vote. How about this time a simple Support/Oppose vote (yes or nov vote). No lengthy explanation or comments. Just whether you agree that because a dozen of the top 20 English RS now call it a civil war, the article should be changed too. (not to mention the French foreign ministry, the UN Human rights spokesmen, the UN piece keeping chief, and arguably assad himself). Sopher99 ( talk) 10:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. EkoGraf ( talk) 13:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
No damages regarding armored tanks/vehicles, MiGs(if any), Cannons, etc have been listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarificationgiven ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Because there are no sources. EkoGraf ( talk) 13:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I have created a military infobox to go with the rename. For the moment, I Have kept the civil box right under the new box. Should the civil box be removed completely or kept at this place?-- Maldonado91 ( talk) 10:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the civil box should be removed. This has evolved into an armed conflict with only a few civilian aspects left. EkoGraf ( talk) 12:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I Agree with EkoGraf because the opposition's fighters are mostly composed of civilians and 85,000 Army Defectors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinxeAdun ( talk • contribs) 12:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The Syrian map of the Arab spring Should be changed into red and must have an ongoing civil war legend — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinxeAdun ( talk • contribs) 12:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Still...the Turks are turning a blind eye to the shipment of arms and fighters over their border to the rebels. And are housing and guarding the rebels military command. EkoGraf ( talk) 14:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The dispute is over by consensus process I think. To answer Vojvodae, the fund and support category make it clear that there is no "huge war in middle east" -- Maldonado91 ( talk) 15:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, your reason is not logical Luk3, military conflict infoboxes are used for uprisings as well cause they are also of an armed nature. EkoGraf ( talk) 14:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
It looks like bloody mess. I shall keep my hands away from it for at least week to see what consensus will be established, but IMO Funded and supported states should be removed, otherwise you can easily add UK, France and USA to opposition side (all admit to sending non-lethal equipment) and Russia, North Korea and China on government side. Result is that you just invented third world war. EllsworthSK ( talk) 15:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
The Washington post source at the same time confirms that 10 percent of the FSA fighters are foreign. They even cite a number of 500-900. That is not a small number and their role in the conflict has been talked about at length in many recent articles. Yes, Fatah al-Islam's group was estimated to be just 30 back in March-April and that is not much. However, recently there was an article that stated almost all of the Lebanese fighters joining the FSA are under the overall command of Fatah. And the Lebanese are estimated to be around 300 and rising. Also, the presence of Fatah is notable given they were the main instigator of the Lebanese conflict from 2007 so are thus a Lebanese player. Overall the presence of the foreigners, though still only estimated to be 10 percent of the rebels, is still highly notable. It's being mentioned constantly in the media as being the main fear of not just the various governments who barely support the rebels but of the rebels themselves. Just today there was a CNN report in which an FSA commander confirmed the foreign presence is still small but that he is highly concerned that their numbers are rising. So the foreigners are a combatant in the conflict however you look at it. EkoGraf ( talk) 17:44, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
If you would check the Iraq war article you would see that the contractors are in the infobox there and their number was in fact 6,000-7,000 and not just several hundred as you say. Also, I disagree that only a few dozen were under enemy fire. The Iraq infobox clearly lists more than 1,500 to have died in the war. Let me get right down to it. The foreign fighters are there, they are almost a thousand strong and the number is rising, they operate only nominally under the FSA (who don't want to have anything to do with them and are thus basically separate from them), they are talked about in the media at least once a week if not more, and the foreign guys are behind several of the mass suicide bombings which have been reported on extensively (confirmed on at least one occasion by the UN chief Ban Ki Mun). All that fits the criteria of notability. And everything is properly referenced with reliable sources. Notability and verifiability, prime principles of Wikipedia. I don't see how it causes the infobox to be unbalanced. I will try to look up that source you requested, but it was almost a month since I read that article. Cheers! EkoGraf ( talk) 00:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Hezbollah is known to provide some sort of political support for the Syrian government. But come on... You can't really include Hezbollah casualties since "yalibnan.com" states so? That site is well known to be against the Hezbollah and Iran in general and provides a lot of materials with no substance. Where's the source criticism on Wikipedia that is usually of a high standard here??!
If you intend to keep it, at least move it to another section and put it as "allegation of militarily involvement". Because, quite frankly, those who reads this page won't check if this is true or not. They will just believe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.96.185.238 ( talk) 16:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Most of what is in this article is based on opposition sources which are against the Syrian government, but we still use them. Besides, the other source is Stratfor. EkoGraf ( talk) 19:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Most of everything in the article are "claims", nothing is definetly confirmed. All depends on a person's point of view. The number of government troops killed is based on an opposition source which is anti-Assad thus not neutral but we still use it. If you feel so strongly about it we can add next to the numbers that those are opposition claims (all figures came from defecting soldiers that joined the FSA) so the reader can form his own point of view. I will add to the infobox who is claiming it. Besides, these are just the only sources that have given a definite number of Hezbollah and Iranian dead. The FSA and the SNC have been saying for almost a year that Iranians and Hezbollah are in the field, which can be found in dozens of sources. And so based on this I am noting in the infobox it is based on opposition claims. EkoGraf ( talk) 22:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)