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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Both Ahrar al-Sham and Sukur al-Sham are fighting, this is sourced. And both are newly created groupd that did not exist before this war. Your explanation as "they don't fight under their color" is both comical and unsourced. Stop using every strategy to hide the groups from public eyes. Wikipedia is bas on the sources, not on your personnal opinions, once again. It is unbelievable how you place yourself above the sources -- DanielUmel ( talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The user EllsworthSK is also teaming up with L7laseral to avoid the rules. Can someone revert his last unacceptable deletions of sourced content please? -- DanielUmel ( talk) 14:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Boohoo. I listed source twice for your own satisfaction, yet you never bothered to read it. So again, this [1] and specifically this part Elements of the Lebanese group Fatah al-Islam and the multinational Abdullah Azzam Brigades have also crossed into Syria; they are not fighting under those banners, however, but simply as "mujahedin.". We already have Mujahedin listed as combatants. EllsworthSK ( talk) 22:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Since when Arhar al-Sham and Sukur al-Sham are "the multi national Abdullah Azzam Brigades", especially when I provide a source stating that theyr are homegrown jihadists groups? You don't even read your own sources as it is merely an excuse for trying to pass your personal opinions.
So now EllsworthSK ego has decided to remove two new islamists militia under the prextex that they are an old foreign group? And without any source at that? And you think you will get away with such poor quality of edits? -- DanielUmel ( talk) 22:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Ahrar al Sham are also notable:
"“The Salafis have their own support, and it’s strong,” says Abu Trad, referring to the Ahrar al-Sham brigades comprised of adherents to a more orthodox form of Sunni Islam. “I don’t blame them, but we started before them, we spilled our blood, I think it’s a grave injustice to us that they have stronger support.”
"Indicators stress that the actual number of these foreign groups is likely to be higher which are "especially active in detonating roadside bombs against regime targets," among them are Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham groups, who have acknowledged that they adhere to the al-Qaeda views."
Here a proof that they were the strongest rebel group near Al Haffa
"“The army only controls the area directly under their tanks,” said Mohanned al Masri, a member of Ahrar al Sham, one of the groups based in the Al Ghab Plain and the primary supplier of rebel fighters at Al Haffa. “Here, the regime has already fallen.”"
And here it says that most foreigh fighters are joining this group
"According to Reuters, in the last few months a steady flow of Arab men from several countries have joined the FSA forces, and most have headed to the province of Hama in central Syria where a few jihadists, or Muslim religious fighters, with experience in Afghanistan have been giving them rudimentary training in handling assault rifles and guerrilla warfare.
Reuters has also learned that these Arab men were planning to join a unit called the Ahrar al-Sham brigades, adding that most of the foreign fighters had joined this unit. “It is our duty to go to the great Bilad al-Sham (Syria) and defend it against the Alawite tyrants massacring its people,” said Bin Shamar, 22, who spoke to Reuters in Reyhanlı, a Turkish town whose Arab inhabitants have historic links with Syria."
And
"A young man, 'Mohammed' drove with the Telegraph through the Idlib countryside in his clapped out white Skoda, the steering wheel replaced by one from a racing car. His Kalashnikov lay in-between his legs. Dried blood from comrades who had been wounded or killed in fighting was streaked on the back seat, and religious verses played loudly through the cassette player.
"I was in al Qaeda and I love al Qaeda. Now I am with Ahrar al Sham group because they are stronger in Syria," he said. "I am supporting al-Qaeda's ideology because of America and Britain's actions. America does what she wants, kills as she wishes, robs as she wishes, and attacks innocents as she wishes. All she does is fight Muslims."
Clearly notable --
DanielUmel (
talk) 23:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Scratch that. I admit that I was wrong with Ahrar al-Sham brigade, they are not part of FSA. However, point with Fatah al-Islam still stands. Also one interesting point, since I re-read several articles about them, I found myself on the same article that was used as pretext for including AQI in the infobox. Turns out that that AQ guy, because of whom it was added there, said that he is member of Ahrar al-Sham brigade (telegraph article). So what do? Do you want to include them under AQI or leave it as separate, thus removing AQI? EllsworthSK ( talk) 00:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
You are finally admitting that you were wrong on this one? Nice. They have to be included as a separate force, under the Mujahideen, alongside with Al Qaeda and Jabat Nusra. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 10:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Once again, the article which we use as a source for AQI (not AQ in general) talks about Ahrar al-Sham, which it says include former AQI operatives who fought in Iraq against coalition. I didn´t notice it back than since I was not aware of Ahrar al-Sham, but given the perspective you can remove AQ and add Ahrar under muji. The NYT source meanwhile talks about al-Nusra front, which is included in the infobox already. EllsworthSK ( talk) 10:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Not at all. There are sources talking about the three organizations. All three are operating in Syria and it should be reflected. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 10:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The fact that Arhar al Sham are considered stronger than Al Qaida and Nusra, which are among the strongest on the ground, only shows the absolute need of their inclusion in the infobox. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 10:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not dispute rationale for their addition to the infobox, I dispute sources which talk about them and were misinterpreted in the past for AQ. EllsworthSK ( talk) 10:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I have to point to you one last time that we go by the sources and not your personal analysis of the sources. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 14:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Jesus, this uptight behaviour again. I shouldn´t be surprised, but I guess I am too naive. In both sources group mentioned in a, al-Nusra b, Ahrar al-Sham. Read them. This is exactly same reason why we removed your AQ edit to infobox in Deir ez-Zor article and replaced it by al-Nusra. EllsworthSK ( talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
New source about Ahrar al-Sham http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/08/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE8610SH20120808
I have provided countless source about the group, now it has to be included. They are notable as proved by all the sources. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 08:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Ahrar al-Sham and Sukur al-Sham are just brigades of Mujahideen. We don’t list separately the brigades of the free syrian army. I should note that many free syrian army brigades are larger and more notable than those of Mujahideen. So listing the brigades of Mujahideen is undue weight. They are included in the heading “Mujahideen”. Tradedia talk 01:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
There are no goup called Mujahideen and therefore there are no "brigades of Mujahideen". This is an absolutely ridiculous original search. Thanks for trying but the sourced content about the two completely independant armed group stay. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 20:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I find it very problematic that the space reserved to “Syrian opposition” in the infobox is smaller than that for “Mujahideen”, eventhought they are a much smaller group. “Syrian opposition” has 3 items, whereas “Mujahideen” has 5 items. This is undue weight and misleading. You can talk about them in the text but not in infobox. Otherwise, I don’t see why I wouldn’t start adding the farouq battalion, Hamzah Al-Khateeb battalion, the touhid brigade, Salaheddine Al-Ayoubi battalion, Sham Falcons, Harmoush battalion, etc… These are larger and more notable than Ahrar al-Sham… Not to mention Regional Military Councils… Tradedia talk 01:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Again, according to Help:Infobox: “The infobox quickly summarizes important points in an easy-to-read format.” It is not for every notable component. Tradedia talk 16:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
"I find it very pproblematic" Is that a joke? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore it does not care about your sensitivity on the number of items. If there are more independant islamist groups, they will have more items. Deal with it. I won't let your deletion of sourced content unchecked.-- DanielUmel ( talk) 21:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with my sensitivity. It has to do with wikipedia’s policy relating to infobox. The islamist groups you added are not independent from al-Qaeda which is already there. The islamist groups are not more numerous than groups of opposition. We chose to summarize it into 3 items. This was our decision. We could have included many more. We could have decided to include Regional Military Councils, major battalions, etc. but we did not, because we are offering a summary. You are being unreasonable trying to put as many elements as possible under “Mujahideen” to push a POV. Tradedia talk 23:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It is very surprising to see this one point being reverted and reverted and reverted, even being referred to as "vandalism" rather than just discuss it here. This certainly amounts to edit-warring, and I highly advise that this behavior stop. Here, here, here, here, and here are just a few examples in recent days. -- Activism 1234 19:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I can do nothing against the bad faith of Trededia. There is nothing left to say to him. When he revert a completely sourced addition of independant group who are fighting the syrian governement only because he do not want more item in one category than in one other, there is nothing to say. He is editing from bad faith and that is pure vandalism and "I don't like it" type of reverts. The talk is finished. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 08:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The muslim brotherhood is also fighting the syrian regime so it should be added in the infobox [2] Baboon43 ( talk) 18:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The muslim brotherhood is the Syrian national council. They are already listed. Also we already put Ali Bayonouni (MB leader) as a commander. Sopher99 ( talk) 20:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Such claims should be included only when supported by major news outlets. Digging deep into the web in order to find something to prove them is not a good practice. Article by Ya Libnan isn't reliable enough because the website is run by the March 14 alliance, which is very openly opposed to Syria and Hizbulla. The Business Insider article is based on a Wikileak which is described as unverified. Wikipedia is not a place for such speculations.-- Rafy talk 12:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I remember that for each city that was under Libyan rebel control, we used the National Transitional Council flag in the rebel cities infobox templates, because the argument was that the NTC was internationally recognized as a government in exile. I was making such edits to Azaz, Al-Bab, and Afrin, Syria before they were reverted under the concern that this should be discussed because of a matter of sovereignty. Intelligent Deathclaw ( talk) 14:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Seems like that part has not bee updated for a while, 38?! If anyone can access it, this article may have more updated info on the matter: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/as-al-qaida-s-power-in-syria-rises-israeli-officials-ready-for-possible-attack.premium-1.455938 FunkMonk ( talk) 12:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I had uptated the number to 58 but Ekograf removed it. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 15:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Because you didn't add a source with your update. EkoGraf ( talk) 16:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
But you knew the source since they were in the Damascus and Homs page and you even posted one of them. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 16:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but the edit you made was still unsourced. I can't add a source after you each time you make an update. You need to add sources yourself. EkoGraf ( talk) 15:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Syrian Civil War →
Syrian civil war – This is ridiculous. I proposed removing the capitals weeks ago (
here), then an editor made an official move request out of it (
here) with the added request of removing the 2011–present bit. In the end, the administrator only carried out the removal of the date but left the incorrect capitals as they were.
"Syrian civil war" is not a
proper noun and thus should not be capitalized per
WP:CAPS.
Mike Selinker explained the reasons behind this quite clearly
here.
TaalVerbeteraar (
talk) 15:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
comment:This article by the Washington Post calls it the "Syrian civil war" http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/main-players-among-syrian-regime-opposition-and-rebels-in-the-countrys-civil-war/2012/08/15/cdc7d05c-e6af-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.178.61 ( talk) 10:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
They were high rankings defectors, but I have not seen any evidence that they are now among the leaders and the commanders of the opposition. They placed themselves in the opposition, no doubt with that, but they have no group, no militia, no party. They don't hold any more their previous titles as they have been dismissed whend they defected.
Therefore, they should not be included among the leader of the opposition until they actually lead something. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 15:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Riad Hijab should also be removed from the infobox in the governement side, even before the date of his defection.
This 'he had no real power' argument is getting ridiculous. Following that logic, we would have to remove Muammar al-Gaddafi from the Libyan civil war infobox because per his own jamahiriya philosophy, he held no power in Libya. Hijab was the official, de jure, prime minister of Syria and thus belongs in the infobox without a shred of doubt. Whether or not he really exercised any power is beside the point. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 08:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
In UK the Prime minister has all the powers, in Syria he has none. I wonder wnhy you want so much to include a low profile bureaucrat who never had any decision making in the war, who only served two months and who was a defector in waiting from day one. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 13:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
He was not vice president (also powerless position). The source state that position is powerless and that he was forced in the position and already wanted to defect. He was never leader nor commander. I will remove him. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 13:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with DanielUmel, no proof that he has taken up a leadership role of any kind in the opposition. If you provide a source which confirms he is a leader, and a notable one, in the opposition, than we can add him. At this point, he has only escape the country and has not taken up a position in the opposition. Verifibility is a postulate of Wikipedia. EkoGraf ( talk) 19:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The President of the Republic and the Prime Minister exercise executive authority on behalf of the people within the limits provided for in the constitution, Also refer editors to numerous other articles specified in chapter Two of the constitution. The Prime Minister may not be a commander, but is leader of the most powerful executive body, for which the military chiefs of staff report to (i.e. Ministers of Defense, Interior and National Security). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Here are some ideas for shortening the article:
I hope this helps.---- Futuretrillionaire ( talk) 19:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The following article quote two exemples of profund cooperation between classic rebels groups and Al Qaeda linked Al Nusra. http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2012/08/al_nusrah_front_conducts_joint.php#ixzz22kEQgPB9
First a statement by the group:
"In obedience to the command of Allah, and in support of His religion and to protect the oppressed in the Levant [Syria], the soldiers of the Al Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant, in cooperation with the Battalion of the Mujahideen of the Companions [Al Sahaba Battalion], carried out an attack on the police station of Jadida Artouz in the countryside of Damascus, killing all the elements, taking their weapons, and completely destroying the building. That was on the morning of Thursday, 19-7-2012."
Second, a report by a newspaper
"According to Abu Khuder, his men are working closely with the military council that commands the Free Syrian Army brigades in the region. "We meet almost every day," he said. "We have clear instructions from our [al-Qaida] leadership that if the FSA need our help we should give it. We help them with IEDs and car bombs. Our main talent is in the bombing operations." Abu Khuder's men had a lot of experience in bomb-making from Iraq and elsewhere, he added."
It appears that on the ground there is a level of cooperation that the Turkey based commander do not admit. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 21:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The member of the group talks like if he was Al Qaeda. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 21:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
It is hardly an argument. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 21:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Please add this article to the "See Also" section: Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012) -- 64.128.27.82 ( talk) 18:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I found this story though a forum somewhere.
Should this be mentioned on the Sectarian Part? I feel this is significant, in showing the marked increase of Sectarianism in the fighting. -- Lionheart Omega ( talk) 03:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9468578/Syrian-forces-clash-with-Jordanian-soldiers-on-the-border.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19205204
142.197.8.220 (
talk) 00:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, the recently defected prime minister Riad Hijab is speaking out about things now, and he claims that the al-Assad government controls "no more than 30%" of the country. In addition, not that anyone would have doubted it, he says he is officially joining the rebels.
If anyone thinks this is worth including, please do so. I'd add it myself, but I'm not quite sure where to put it, so I'll let someone else place it in an appropriate spot.-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 16:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hijab admitted himself he was with the rebels from the start. He iis like a random rebel spokeman and no real power in Syria as I demonstrated above on thsi talk page. --
DanielUmel (
talk) 21:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
No, the only thing we have to go is what he say. This is the only version on his postion and we have to go with that and not your Qatar money theory. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 22:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Might I ask exactly where this "Qatari money" thing comes from? As for the link, I was looking at the BBC news website, and thought it might be of use, but apparently not.-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 02:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
In any case, we all agree this guy is unreliable. At least most of us. EkoGraf ( talk) 14:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
March 15, 2011 seems like an awkward starting date for the civil war. No battles occurred on that day, just massive protests. Now that this article is changed to Syrian civil war, not Syrian uprising, I think we should consider changing the starting date. The American Revolutionary War began with the battle of Battles of Lexington and Concord, not the first massive protest against the British government. The Finnish Civil War (a featured arttcle) began with its first battle, and everything that happened before is included in the "Background". With this in mind, a more appropriate starting date for the Syrian Civil War would be September 27, 2011, which was the start of the First Battle of Rastan, the first major confrontation between opposition fighters and the Syrian government. The protests and politics that happened before are not exactly part of the civil war. The vast majority of war articles begin with its first battles, not first protests. ---- Futuretrillionaire ( talk) 20:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Not every civil war starts with a battle, there are a lot of them that start out as civil unrest before erupting into armed clashes. Besides, trying to cite September 27, 2011, the way you propose is a bit of OR. Stick to what the sources say, and most, if not all, of the sources cite the conflict as being a 17 month conflict, that is, starting in March 2011. EkoGraf ( talk) 15:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Here is a clear organizational chart of Assad's inner circle [25], including his family members, religious affiliations of members information regrading defections and deaths. We can't use this image, but a chart like this can be easily made. It's also a good resource for updating the infobox. Hope this helps. -- Futuretrillionaire ( talk) 18:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
We have a serious problem in that the current size of 92850 bytes is more than 50% larger than the ideal maximum dictated by WP:SIZERULE, therefore I will be commanding further splittings, removals and deletions of content. Oxycut ( talk) 07:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
For example
Egyptian Revolution (2011-2012) (This one even goes to 220,000 bytes) Sopher99 ( talk) 07:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The current lede says the following:
Which I think should be changed to:
This will emphasize what most reliable sources are already doing, as the characterization of the events as a civil war has far eclipsed the reference to uprising.
Wer900 • talk • coordination consensus defined 17:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Some, although a much smaller number, are still referring to it as an uprising, that's why we don't put previously. EkoGraf ( talk) 13:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The adding of Kosovo to the info-box on the rebel side is WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and the RT source provided certainly does not meet the criteria for evidence needed for this kind of claim. It is remarkable that you wish to add Kosovo when multiple high quality sources exist for adding Jordan and Lebanon to the info box as part of the conflict. حرية ( talk) 17:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I am very concerned with the addition of "Germany" in the infobox under "economic & military support" to the Syrian rebels. The reference, Reuters, specifically writes "a newspaper said on Sunday, without citing sources." Who says this is true? On an article like this, we can NOT simply write this as a FACT. If someone can change it to somethin galong the lines of "according to a certain newspaper..." it'd be better, but it's current format isn't acceptable. -- Activism 1234 21:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Activism1234. I never intended to blame you for something. My post was general and not directed against you. And of course, if several articles refers to a single source, it should be deemed as a single source. This was just a misunderstanding for our part. Have a nice day :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intouchabless ( talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
What is the source for this map? It looks like original research, and should really have some citations on the description page. Of course there are Alawites in Damascus and Aleppo, the map is incorrect. FunkMonk ( talk) 22:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I used to visit the page to link myself to the timeline to see what was happening day by day. That link no longer in this page. What happened to it? I'm referring to: Timeline of the Syrian civil war.
Should this be re-added for clarity? It is very relavent to this topic. Jimerb ( talk) 17:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Editors are urged to read Wikipedia:Splitting and linked pages before considering splitting parts of articles. Note it is important to follow the GFD license attribution requirements, for which see Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. - 84user ( talk) 01:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The map is sourced, hwoever, it doesn't follow the sources. See the maps that were used as a sources. -- Wüstenfuchs 13:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I refuse to make any more updates on
File:Syria Ethnoreligious Map.png as I have already spent way too much time on it, and it seems like it will take me another 4-5 edits until Wustenfuchs accepts it. He wants me to make it exactly match his one source that he provided, even though I had 4 sources myself! I suggest that Wustenfuchs make his own version of the map and then update the file, because I personally have given up on this file. Actually, using Wustenfuch's POV, it would be much easier to just ask Columbia university for permission to use their file rather than go with my map lol.
But there remains another file,
File:Alawite Distribution in the Levant.png, which I am more willing to polish as I only recently added it, and it is easier to deal with than all of Syria. Some have been complaining that it has "holes" and is "inaccurate" (lol). Well, it's not! I have posted a new image:
File:Alawite distribution explained.png (only for clarification, please do not post it on WP). And the sources for it on:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Alawite_distribution_explained.png.
Moester101 (
talk) 22:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Guys, please take it easy on User:Moester101. It is easier to criticise one's work and a different thing to actually try to improve something, so let's try to stay civil. I think the Alawite map is a great start. Moester101, are you able to expand on academic sources into your Alawite distribution map and have it reflect into your work to be more accurate and satisfy the concerns raised here? That would be great, thank you. Wüstenfuchs, you objected to the depiction of the Syrian coast, the Hatay Province and those parts where the Christians make majority of the population. Could you please also source that so we can figure out what the exact demographics are for the areas concerned? Gryffindor ( talk) 06:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking that a paragraph from our article about censorship of journalism, etc. is almost exactly copied from the relevant part of this page? It's listed as the source here, but this is hardly even paraphrasing, I think. dalahäst ( let's talk!) 15:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
In this civil war in Syria the human rights and the Geneva Conventions are violated every day by both parts. This civil war is actually a massacre from both sides. The article does not make clear if these war crimes are subject to the international court of justice, such as in the case of the civil war in former Yugoslavia 688dim ( talk) 10:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the File:Syrian Civil War.svg should be put into the infobox for two reasons. 1: An image of protesters gives the idea of the conflict being a protest or a minor uprising. Showing a map would show different areas of control. 2: It is similar to User:Rafy's map with Libya. This just a suggestion, just to bring up the idea now that is has 62 cities and towns on it. – Spesh531, My talk, and External links 18:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Libya became a civil war after three weeks. Syria became a civil war after 16 months. For the vast majority it was an uprising. The maps belong in the civil war subsection. Sopher99 ( talk) 09:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The owner of this account is suspected of
abusively using multiple accounts.
(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets) |
, a user who frequently vandalizes this page. Sopher99 ( talk) 10:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Spesh531. -- Wüstenfuchs 20:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This is from todays Guardian: "The rebel forces' inability to receive reinforcements is not helping them against a standing military that continues to outman and outgun them. Nor are new weapons coming their way, after the flush of guns and bombs taken in raids on regime depots abandoned by fleeing forces in late-July.
A trickle of assault weapons and ammunition comes over the border from Turkey, with the help of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkish intelligence officials. However, the heavy weapons that rebel leaders have been calling for, especially anti-aircraft guns, have not arrived." And Russia, consistent and straight down the line, pro-Assad, is not there. is this state of affairs represented in the misinfobox? 92.13.84.167 ( talk) 15:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I have created an "Impact" section for this article, which you can find near the end. So far it includes, "crime wave", "refugees", "effects on Lebanon", and "Deaths". However, each of these subsections are rather short, and needs expansion. If you can help out, that would be great.-- Futuretrillionaire ( talk) 17:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Who created the Azeri section and why? There aren't even any sources. VossPL ( talk) 15:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I have already pointed this out, but here is a more reliable source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/cash-the-lure-for-syrian-defectors/story-fnb64oi6-1226455233442 FunkMonk ( talk) 00:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
that is TTTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO INSANE FOR SOMEONE TO BELIEVE THAT . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
even if it is true that one report only,and other newspapers never said stick with the fact,don't stick with weak reports. Alhanuty ( talk) 18:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
1 - This article requires one to log in to the site to see the source.
2 - They are not talking about bribes, they are talking about Saudi Arabia planning on paying their wages. This was already announced to the entire world and has long been known. Syrian officials would be more willing to defect if they know their wages won't be lost. Many officials don't defect because they have to feed their families. Your fantasy that you exposed some sort of conspiracy is complete untrue. Sopher99 ( talk) 09:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
agree with Sopher99,anyway this only on article and non-reliable . Alhanuty ( talk) 02:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Unreliable by whom? The Australian is the biggest-selling national newspaper in Australia. Check out its Wikipedia page. That more than qualifies it on the reliability-scale. If you were of the opinion that its unreliable due to it stating something that can be conceived by some in some way as being anti-rebel than you should rethink your own neutrality. Actually, per your various comments around Wikipedia it can be seen you can't keep a neutral stand point, and have been a constant pro-rebel pov-pusher, by adding information, in 90 percent of the cases, without sources. EkoGraf ( talk) 18:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
This Is Only One Article EcoGrak,this cannot be confirmed except if other sources say that too,why didn't any other report it,such as the gurdian,or new york times and other big newspapers,this defiantly proves that this article is very unreliable . Alhanuty ( talk) 16:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Ecograf give me the sources NOW,this Australian source isn't enough to judge ,by the way i am neutral and i write the fact from the sources but goverment claims are mostly untrue and pro government and propaganda and some countries as china and russia propagandise and control all media sources and make sure the that their media is favourable to the government, so chinese ,russian,iranian,and other governments who support the syrian regime are unreliable . Alhanuty ( talk) 19:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Ask FunkMonk for the other sources. And please...by your own comments where each time a source says something possibly anti-rebel you yell nooooo its not true it can be seen you are not neutral. Are you going to tell me the Australian government is also controlling that Australian newspaper? And if you are of the opinion that anybody who supports the Syrian government can't report reliable news than I would have to say to you that anybody who supports the rebels can't report reliable news (US, UK, France, Turkey, etc). Example...who do you think controls and finances al-Jazeera? Hint - Saudi Arabia. Let's not be naive here. EkoGraf ( talk) 16:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
i am not saying that the Australian government is also controlling that Australian newspaper i am saying bring other sources confirming it . it doesn't need to be from countries that support rebels,but it can't be from countries who support the syrian regime . Alhanuty ( talk) 21:17, 28 August 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 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
Both Ahrar al-Sham and Sukur al-Sham are fighting, this is sourced. And both are newly created groupd that did not exist before this war. Your explanation as "they don't fight under their color" is both comical and unsourced. Stop using every strategy to hide the groups from public eyes. Wikipedia is bas on the sources, not on your personnal opinions, once again. It is unbelievable how you place yourself above the sources -- DanielUmel ( talk) 14:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The user EllsworthSK is also teaming up with L7laseral to avoid the rules. Can someone revert his last unacceptable deletions of sourced content please? -- DanielUmel ( talk) 14:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Boohoo. I listed source twice for your own satisfaction, yet you never bothered to read it. So again, this [1] and specifically this part Elements of the Lebanese group Fatah al-Islam and the multinational Abdullah Azzam Brigades have also crossed into Syria; they are not fighting under those banners, however, but simply as "mujahedin.". We already have Mujahedin listed as combatants. EllsworthSK ( talk) 22:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Since when Arhar al-Sham and Sukur al-Sham are "the multi national Abdullah Azzam Brigades", especially when I provide a source stating that theyr are homegrown jihadists groups? You don't even read your own sources as it is merely an excuse for trying to pass your personal opinions.
So now EllsworthSK ego has decided to remove two new islamists militia under the prextex that they are an old foreign group? And without any source at that? And you think you will get away with such poor quality of edits? -- DanielUmel ( talk) 22:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Ahrar al Sham are also notable:
"“The Salafis have their own support, and it’s strong,” says Abu Trad, referring to the Ahrar al-Sham brigades comprised of adherents to a more orthodox form of Sunni Islam. “I don’t blame them, but we started before them, we spilled our blood, I think it’s a grave injustice to us that they have stronger support.”
"Indicators stress that the actual number of these foreign groups is likely to be higher which are "especially active in detonating roadside bombs against regime targets," among them are Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham groups, who have acknowledged that they adhere to the al-Qaeda views."
Here a proof that they were the strongest rebel group near Al Haffa
"“The army only controls the area directly under their tanks,” said Mohanned al Masri, a member of Ahrar al Sham, one of the groups based in the Al Ghab Plain and the primary supplier of rebel fighters at Al Haffa. “Here, the regime has already fallen.”"
And here it says that most foreigh fighters are joining this group
"According to Reuters, in the last few months a steady flow of Arab men from several countries have joined the FSA forces, and most have headed to the province of Hama in central Syria where a few jihadists, or Muslim religious fighters, with experience in Afghanistan have been giving them rudimentary training in handling assault rifles and guerrilla warfare.
Reuters has also learned that these Arab men were planning to join a unit called the Ahrar al-Sham brigades, adding that most of the foreign fighters had joined this unit. “It is our duty to go to the great Bilad al-Sham (Syria) and defend it against the Alawite tyrants massacring its people,” said Bin Shamar, 22, who spoke to Reuters in Reyhanlı, a Turkish town whose Arab inhabitants have historic links with Syria."
And
"A young man, 'Mohammed' drove with the Telegraph through the Idlib countryside in his clapped out white Skoda, the steering wheel replaced by one from a racing car. His Kalashnikov lay in-between his legs. Dried blood from comrades who had been wounded or killed in fighting was streaked on the back seat, and religious verses played loudly through the cassette player.
"I was in al Qaeda and I love al Qaeda. Now I am with Ahrar al Sham group because they are stronger in Syria," he said. "I am supporting al-Qaeda's ideology because of America and Britain's actions. America does what she wants, kills as she wishes, robs as she wishes, and attacks innocents as she wishes. All she does is fight Muslims."
Clearly notable --
DanielUmel (
talk) 23:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Scratch that. I admit that I was wrong with Ahrar al-Sham brigade, they are not part of FSA. However, point with Fatah al-Islam still stands. Also one interesting point, since I re-read several articles about them, I found myself on the same article that was used as pretext for including AQI in the infobox. Turns out that that AQ guy, because of whom it was added there, said that he is member of Ahrar al-Sham brigade (telegraph article). So what do? Do you want to include them under AQI or leave it as separate, thus removing AQI? EllsworthSK ( talk) 00:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
You are finally admitting that you were wrong on this one? Nice. They have to be included as a separate force, under the Mujahideen, alongside with Al Qaeda and Jabat Nusra. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 10:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Once again, the article which we use as a source for AQI (not AQ in general) talks about Ahrar al-Sham, which it says include former AQI operatives who fought in Iraq against coalition. I didn´t notice it back than since I was not aware of Ahrar al-Sham, but given the perspective you can remove AQ and add Ahrar under muji. The NYT source meanwhile talks about al-Nusra front, which is included in the infobox already. EllsworthSK ( talk) 10:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Not at all. There are sources talking about the three organizations. All three are operating in Syria and it should be reflected. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 10:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The fact that Arhar al Sham are considered stronger than Al Qaida and Nusra, which are among the strongest on the ground, only shows the absolute need of their inclusion in the infobox. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 10:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I do not dispute rationale for their addition to the infobox, I dispute sources which talk about them and were misinterpreted in the past for AQ. EllsworthSK ( talk) 10:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I have to point to you one last time that we go by the sources and not your personal analysis of the sources. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 14:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Jesus, this uptight behaviour again. I shouldn´t be surprised, but I guess I am too naive. In both sources group mentioned in a, al-Nusra b, Ahrar al-Sham. Read them. This is exactly same reason why we removed your AQ edit to infobox in Deir ez-Zor article and replaced it by al-Nusra. EllsworthSK ( talk) 17:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
New source about Ahrar al-Sham http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/08/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE8610SH20120808
I have provided countless source about the group, now it has to be included. They are notable as proved by all the sources. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 08:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Ahrar al-Sham and Sukur al-Sham are just brigades of Mujahideen. We don’t list separately the brigades of the free syrian army. I should note that many free syrian army brigades are larger and more notable than those of Mujahideen. So listing the brigades of Mujahideen is undue weight. They are included in the heading “Mujahideen”. Tradedia talk 01:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
There are no goup called Mujahideen and therefore there are no "brigades of Mujahideen". This is an absolutely ridiculous original search. Thanks for trying but the sourced content about the two completely independant armed group stay. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 20:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
I find it very problematic that the space reserved to “Syrian opposition” in the infobox is smaller than that for “Mujahideen”, eventhought they are a much smaller group. “Syrian opposition” has 3 items, whereas “Mujahideen” has 5 items. This is undue weight and misleading. You can talk about them in the text but not in infobox. Otherwise, I don’t see why I wouldn’t start adding the farouq battalion, Hamzah Al-Khateeb battalion, the touhid brigade, Salaheddine Al-Ayoubi battalion, Sham Falcons, Harmoush battalion, etc… These are larger and more notable than Ahrar al-Sham… Not to mention Regional Military Councils… Tradedia talk 01:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC) Again, according to Help:Infobox: “The infobox quickly summarizes important points in an easy-to-read format.” It is not for every notable component. Tradedia talk 16:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
"I find it very pproblematic" Is that a joke? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore it does not care about your sensitivity on the number of items. If there are more independant islamist groups, they will have more items. Deal with it. I won't let your deletion of sourced content unchecked.-- DanielUmel ( talk) 21:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with my sensitivity. It has to do with wikipedia’s policy relating to infobox. The islamist groups you added are not independent from al-Qaeda which is already there. The islamist groups are not more numerous than groups of opposition. We chose to summarize it into 3 items. This was our decision. We could have included many more. We could have decided to include Regional Military Councils, major battalions, etc. but we did not, because we are offering a summary. You are being unreasonable trying to put as many elements as possible under “Mujahideen” to push a POV. Tradedia talk 23:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
It is very surprising to see this one point being reverted and reverted and reverted, even being referred to as "vandalism" rather than just discuss it here. This certainly amounts to edit-warring, and I highly advise that this behavior stop. Here, here, here, here, and here are just a few examples in recent days. -- Activism 1234 19:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I can do nothing against the bad faith of Trededia. There is nothing left to say to him. When he revert a completely sourced addition of independant group who are fighting the syrian governement only because he do not want more item in one category than in one other, there is nothing to say. He is editing from bad faith and that is pure vandalism and "I don't like it" type of reverts. The talk is finished. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 08:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
The muslim brotherhood is also fighting the syrian regime so it should be added in the infobox [2] Baboon43 ( talk) 18:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The muslim brotherhood is the Syrian national council. They are already listed. Also we already put Ali Bayonouni (MB leader) as a commander. Sopher99 ( talk) 20:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Such claims should be included only when supported by major news outlets. Digging deep into the web in order to find something to prove them is not a good practice. Article by Ya Libnan isn't reliable enough because the website is run by the March 14 alliance, which is very openly opposed to Syria and Hizbulla. The Business Insider article is based on a Wikileak which is described as unverified. Wikipedia is not a place for such speculations.-- Rafy talk 12:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I remember that for each city that was under Libyan rebel control, we used the National Transitional Council flag in the rebel cities infobox templates, because the argument was that the NTC was internationally recognized as a government in exile. I was making such edits to Azaz, Al-Bab, and Afrin, Syria before they were reverted under the concern that this should be discussed because of a matter of sovereignty. Intelligent Deathclaw ( talk) 14:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Seems like that part has not bee updated for a while, 38?! If anyone can access it, this article may have more updated info on the matter: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/as-al-qaida-s-power-in-syria-rises-israeli-officials-ready-for-possible-attack.premium-1.455938 FunkMonk ( talk) 12:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I had uptated the number to 58 but Ekograf removed it. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 15:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Because you didn't add a source with your update. EkoGraf ( talk) 16:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
But you knew the source since they were in the Damascus and Homs page and you even posted one of them. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 16:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but the edit you made was still unsourced. I can't add a source after you each time you make an update. You need to add sources yourself. EkoGraf ( talk) 15:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Syrian Civil War →
Syrian civil war – This is ridiculous. I proposed removing the capitals weeks ago (
here), then an editor made an official move request out of it (
here) with the added request of removing the 2011–present bit. In the end, the administrator only carried out the removal of the date but left the incorrect capitals as they were.
"Syrian civil war" is not a
proper noun and thus should not be capitalized per
WP:CAPS.
Mike Selinker explained the reasons behind this quite clearly
here.
TaalVerbeteraar (
talk) 15:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
comment:This article by the Washington Post calls it the "Syrian civil war" http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/main-players-among-syrian-regime-opposition-and-rebels-in-the-countrys-civil-war/2012/08/15/cdc7d05c-e6af-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.178.61 ( talk) 10:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
They were high rankings defectors, but I have not seen any evidence that they are now among the leaders and the commanders of the opposition. They placed themselves in the opposition, no doubt with that, but they have no group, no militia, no party. They don't hold any more their previous titles as they have been dismissed whend they defected.
Therefore, they should not be included among the leader of the opposition until they actually lead something. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 15:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Riad Hijab should also be removed from the infobox in the governement side, even before the date of his defection.
This 'he had no real power' argument is getting ridiculous. Following that logic, we would have to remove Muammar al-Gaddafi from the Libyan civil war infobox because per his own jamahiriya philosophy, he held no power in Libya. Hijab was the official, de jure, prime minister of Syria and thus belongs in the infobox without a shred of doubt. Whether or not he really exercised any power is beside the point. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 08:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
In UK the Prime minister has all the powers, in Syria he has none. I wonder wnhy you want so much to include a low profile bureaucrat who never had any decision making in the war, who only served two months and who was a defector in waiting from day one. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 13:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
He was not vice president (also powerless position). The source state that position is powerless and that he was forced in the position and already wanted to defect. He was never leader nor commander. I will remove him. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 13:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree with DanielUmel, no proof that he has taken up a leadership role of any kind in the opposition. If you provide a source which confirms he is a leader, and a notable one, in the opposition, than we can add him. At this point, he has only escape the country and has not taken up a position in the opposition. Verifibility is a postulate of Wikipedia. EkoGraf ( talk) 19:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The President of the Republic and the Prime Minister exercise executive authority on behalf of the people within the limits provided for in the constitution, Also refer editors to numerous other articles specified in chapter Two of the constitution. The Prime Minister may not be a commander, but is leader of the most powerful executive body, for which the military chiefs of staff report to (i.e. Ministers of Defense, Interior and National Security). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiecapper ( talk • contribs) 04:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Here are some ideas for shortening the article:
I hope this helps.---- Futuretrillionaire ( talk) 19:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The following article quote two exemples of profund cooperation between classic rebels groups and Al Qaeda linked Al Nusra. http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2012/08/al_nusrah_front_conducts_joint.php#ixzz22kEQgPB9
First a statement by the group:
"In obedience to the command of Allah, and in support of His religion and to protect the oppressed in the Levant [Syria], the soldiers of the Al Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant, in cooperation with the Battalion of the Mujahideen of the Companions [Al Sahaba Battalion], carried out an attack on the police station of Jadida Artouz in the countryside of Damascus, killing all the elements, taking their weapons, and completely destroying the building. That was on the morning of Thursday, 19-7-2012."
Second, a report by a newspaper
"According to Abu Khuder, his men are working closely with the military council that commands the Free Syrian Army brigades in the region. "We meet almost every day," he said. "We have clear instructions from our [al-Qaida] leadership that if the FSA need our help we should give it. We help them with IEDs and car bombs. Our main talent is in the bombing operations." Abu Khuder's men had a lot of experience in bomb-making from Iraq and elsewhere, he added."
It appears that on the ground there is a level of cooperation that the Turkey based commander do not admit. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 21:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The member of the group talks like if he was Al Qaeda. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 21:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
It is hardly an argument. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 21:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Please add this article to the "See Also" section: Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012) -- 64.128.27.82 ( talk) 18:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I found this story though a forum somewhere.
Should this be mentioned on the Sectarian Part? I feel this is significant, in showing the marked increase of Sectarianism in the fighting. -- Lionheart Omega ( talk) 03:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9468578/Syrian-forces-clash-with-Jordanian-soldiers-on-the-border.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19205204
142.197.8.220 (
talk) 00:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, the recently defected prime minister Riad Hijab is speaking out about things now, and he claims that the al-Assad government controls "no more than 30%" of the country. In addition, not that anyone would have doubted it, he says he is officially joining the rebels.
If anyone thinks this is worth including, please do so. I'd add it myself, but I'm not quite sure where to put it, so I'll let someone else place it in an appropriate spot.-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 16:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hijab admitted himself he was with the rebels from the start. He iis like a random rebel spokeman and no real power in Syria as I demonstrated above on thsi talk page. --
DanielUmel (
talk) 21:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
No, the only thing we have to go is what he say. This is the only version on his postion and we have to go with that and not your Qatar money theory. -- DanielUmel ( talk) 22:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Might I ask exactly where this "Qatari money" thing comes from? As for the link, I was looking at the BBC news website, and thought it might be of use, but apparently not.-- L1A1 FAL ( talk) 02:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
In any case, we all agree this guy is unreliable. At least most of us. EkoGraf ( talk) 14:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
March 15, 2011 seems like an awkward starting date for the civil war. No battles occurred on that day, just massive protests. Now that this article is changed to Syrian civil war, not Syrian uprising, I think we should consider changing the starting date. The American Revolutionary War began with the battle of Battles of Lexington and Concord, not the first massive protest against the British government. The Finnish Civil War (a featured arttcle) began with its first battle, and everything that happened before is included in the "Background". With this in mind, a more appropriate starting date for the Syrian Civil War would be September 27, 2011, which was the start of the First Battle of Rastan, the first major confrontation between opposition fighters and the Syrian government. The protests and politics that happened before are not exactly part of the civil war. The vast majority of war articles begin with its first battles, not first protests. ---- Futuretrillionaire ( talk) 20:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Not every civil war starts with a battle, there are a lot of them that start out as civil unrest before erupting into armed clashes. Besides, trying to cite September 27, 2011, the way you propose is a bit of OR. Stick to what the sources say, and most, if not all, of the sources cite the conflict as being a 17 month conflict, that is, starting in March 2011. EkoGraf ( talk) 15:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Here is a clear organizational chart of Assad's inner circle [25], including his family members, religious affiliations of members information regrading defections and deaths. We can't use this image, but a chart like this can be easily made. It's also a good resource for updating the infobox. Hope this helps. -- Futuretrillionaire ( talk) 18:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
We have a serious problem in that the current size of 92850 bytes is more than 50% larger than the ideal maximum dictated by WP:SIZERULE, therefore I will be commanding further splittings, removals and deletions of content. Oxycut ( talk) 07:10, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
For example
Egyptian Revolution (2011-2012) (This one even goes to 220,000 bytes) Sopher99 ( talk) 07:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
The current lede says the following:
Which I think should be changed to:
This will emphasize what most reliable sources are already doing, as the characterization of the events as a civil war has far eclipsed the reference to uprising.
Wer900 • talk • coordination consensus defined 17:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Some, although a much smaller number, are still referring to it as an uprising, that's why we don't put previously. EkoGraf ( talk) 13:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The adding of Kosovo to the info-box on the rebel side is WP:EXCEPTIONAL, and the RT source provided certainly does not meet the criteria for evidence needed for this kind of claim. It is remarkable that you wish to add Kosovo when multiple high quality sources exist for adding Jordan and Lebanon to the info box as part of the conflict. حرية ( talk) 17:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I am very concerned with the addition of "Germany" in the infobox under "economic & military support" to the Syrian rebels. The reference, Reuters, specifically writes "a newspaper said on Sunday, without citing sources." Who says this is true? On an article like this, we can NOT simply write this as a FACT. If someone can change it to somethin galong the lines of "according to a certain newspaper..." it'd be better, but it's current format isn't acceptable. -- Activism 1234 21:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Activism1234. I never intended to blame you for something. My post was general and not directed against you. And of course, if several articles refers to a single source, it should be deemed as a single source. This was just a misunderstanding for our part. Have a nice day :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Intouchabless ( talk • contribs) 23:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
What is the source for this map? It looks like original research, and should really have some citations on the description page. Of course there are Alawites in Damascus and Aleppo, the map is incorrect. FunkMonk ( talk) 22:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I used to visit the page to link myself to the timeline to see what was happening day by day. That link no longer in this page. What happened to it? I'm referring to: Timeline of the Syrian civil war.
Should this be re-added for clarity? It is very relavent to this topic. Jimerb ( talk) 17:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Editors are urged to read Wikipedia:Splitting and linked pages before considering splitting parts of articles. Note it is important to follow the GFD license attribution requirements, for which see Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. - 84user ( talk) 01:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
The map is sourced, hwoever, it doesn't follow the sources. See the maps that were used as a sources. -- Wüstenfuchs 13:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I refuse to make any more updates on
File:Syria Ethnoreligious Map.png as I have already spent way too much time on it, and it seems like it will take me another 4-5 edits until Wustenfuchs accepts it. He wants me to make it exactly match his one source that he provided, even though I had 4 sources myself! I suggest that Wustenfuchs make his own version of the map and then update the file, because I personally have given up on this file. Actually, using Wustenfuch's POV, it would be much easier to just ask Columbia university for permission to use their file rather than go with my map lol.
But there remains another file,
File:Alawite Distribution in the Levant.png, which I am more willing to polish as I only recently added it, and it is easier to deal with than all of Syria. Some have been complaining that it has "holes" and is "inaccurate" (lol). Well, it's not! I have posted a new image:
File:Alawite distribution explained.png (only for clarification, please do not post it on WP). And the sources for it on:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Alawite_distribution_explained.png.
Moester101 (
talk) 22:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Guys, please take it easy on User:Moester101. It is easier to criticise one's work and a different thing to actually try to improve something, so let's try to stay civil. I think the Alawite map is a great start. Moester101, are you able to expand on academic sources into your Alawite distribution map and have it reflect into your work to be more accurate and satisfy the concerns raised here? That would be great, thank you. Wüstenfuchs, you objected to the depiction of the Syrian coast, the Hatay Province and those parts where the Christians make majority of the population. Could you please also source that so we can figure out what the exact demographics are for the areas concerned? Gryffindor ( talk) 06:45, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking that a paragraph from our article about censorship of journalism, etc. is almost exactly copied from the relevant part of this page? It's listed as the source here, but this is hardly even paraphrasing, I think. dalahäst ( let's talk!) 15:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
In this civil war in Syria the human rights and the Geneva Conventions are violated every day by both parts. This civil war is actually a massacre from both sides. The article does not make clear if these war crimes are subject to the international court of justice, such as in the case of the civil war in former Yugoslavia 688dim ( talk) 10:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the File:Syrian Civil War.svg should be put into the infobox for two reasons. 1: An image of protesters gives the idea of the conflict being a protest or a minor uprising. Showing a map would show different areas of control. 2: It is similar to User:Rafy's map with Libya. This just a suggestion, just to bring up the idea now that is has 62 cities and towns on it. – Spesh531, My talk, and External links 18:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Libya became a civil war after three weeks. Syria became a civil war after 16 months. For the vast majority it was an uprising. The maps belong in the civil war subsection. Sopher99 ( talk) 09:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
The owner of this account is suspected of
abusively using multiple accounts.
(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets) |
, a user who frequently vandalizes this page. Sopher99 ( talk) 10:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Spesh531. -- Wüstenfuchs 20:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This is from todays Guardian: "The rebel forces' inability to receive reinforcements is not helping them against a standing military that continues to outman and outgun them. Nor are new weapons coming their way, after the flush of guns and bombs taken in raids on regime depots abandoned by fleeing forces in late-July.
A trickle of assault weapons and ammunition comes over the border from Turkey, with the help of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkish intelligence officials. However, the heavy weapons that rebel leaders have been calling for, especially anti-aircraft guns, have not arrived." And Russia, consistent and straight down the line, pro-Assad, is not there. is this state of affairs represented in the misinfobox? 92.13.84.167 ( talk) 15:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I have created an "Impact" section for this article, which you can find near the end. So far it includes, "crime wave", "refugees", "effects on Lebanon", and "Deaths". However, each of these subsections are rather short, and needs expansion. If you can help out, that would be great.-- Futuretrillionaire ( talk) 17:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Who created the Azeri section and why? There aren't even any sources. VossPL ( talk) 15:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I have already pointed this out, but here is a more reliable source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/cash-the-lure-for-syrian-defectors/story-fnb64oi6-1226455233442 FunkMonk ( talk) 00:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
that is TTTOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO INSANE FOR SOMEONE TO BELIEVE THAT . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
even if it is true that one report only,and other newspapers never said stick with the fact,don't stick with weak reports. Alhanuty ( talk) 18:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
1 - This article requires one to log in to the site to see the source.
2 - They are not talking about bribes, they are talking about Saudi Arabia planning on paying their wages. This was already announced to the entire world and has long been known. Syrian officials would be more willing to defect if they know their wages won't be lost. Many officials don't defect because they have to feed their families. Your fantasy that you exposed some sort of conspiracy is complete untrue. Sopher99 ( talk) 09:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
agree with Sopher99,anyway this only on article and non-reliable . Alhanuty ( talk) 02:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Unreliable by whom? The Australian is the biggest-selling national newspaper in Australia. Check out its Wikipedia page. That more than qualifies it on the reliability-scale. If you were of the opinion that its unreliable due to it stating something that can be conceived by some in some way as being anti-rebel than you should rethink your own neutrality. Actually, per your various comments around Wikipedia it can be seen you can't keep a neutral stand point, and have been a constant pro-rebel pov-pusher, by adding information, in 90 percent of the cases, without sources. EkoGraf ( talk) 18:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
This Is Only One Article EcoGrak,this cannot be confirmed except if other sources say that too,why didn't any other report it,such as the gurdian,or new york times and other big newspapers,this defiantly proves that this article is very unreliable . Alhanuty ( talk) 16:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Ecograf give me the sources NOW,this Australian source isn't enough to judge ,by the way i am neutral and i write the fact from the sources but goverment claims are mostly untrue and pro government and propaganda and some countries as china and russia propagandise and control all media sources and make sure the that their media is favourable to the government, so chinese ,russian,iranian,and other governments who support the syrian regime are unreliable . Alhanuty ( talk) 19:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Ask FunkMonk for the other sources. And please...by your own comments where each time a source says something possibly anti-rebel you yell nooooo its not true it can be seen you are not neutral. Are you going to tell me the Australian government is also controlling that Australian newspaper? And if you are of the opinion that anybody who supports the Syrian government can't report reliable news than I would have to say to you that anybody who supports the rebels can't report reliable news (US, UK, France, Turkey, etc). Example...who do you think controls and finances al-Jazeera? Hint - Saudi Arabia. Let's not be naive here. EkoGraf ( talk) 16:42, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
i am not saying that the Australian government is also controlling that Australian newspaper i am saying bring other sources confirming it . it doesn't need to be from countries that support rebels,but it can't be from countries who support the syrian regime . Alhanuty ( talk) 21:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)