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 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
My proposed begin of the lead section stands below under point 7 boldly printed, but this is my motivation:
Gentlemen, I made an edit on page SCW, with a (rather longish) motivation on Talk page. You two refuse to read that motivation, which seems to me totally not-Wiki, and unpolite. Only saying that my motivation was “too long” (after which standards?) is a personal attack, in the sense that it denies my basic right (vital for Wikipedia !) to motivate an edit in my own words. In short: you violate basic politeness and Wiki philosophy and guidelines. That makes it rather impossible to further ‘discuss’ with you here. I’m not going to go on with repeating myself, and contradicting things like: ‘…did not come out of the blue…’ which is rather an absurd thing to say, considering the amount of work I’ve done myself to show that indeed the lead section did not come out of the blue. The point I’ve been making some five times now, is that the lead contained (sometimes rather old) mistakes. It’s rather a nonsensical, insulting to say that I “just threw things overboard”: I’ve scrupulously motivated what and why I’ve removed from the article. As for FT: where did I say the lead is a Timeline? (And please stop writing ‘lede’ if your English is supposed to be superior to mine.) If you want a better lead, then make it, and please have the courtesy (and cooperative Wiki-ness) to motivate your possible edit. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 08:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
@Emesik: my remark about superior (= better) English was not directed at you, but at FT who commented lastly on my language as 'choppy' but himself (incorrectly) writes 'lede' where he probably means 'lead'. @FT and everyone: I was rather angry about behavior of FT on 12 June. If he took part of my answer on 12 June (which I strike now) as an attack, I apologize for it. @Emesik and FutureTrillionaire (FT): I've tried to politely say to you and everyone that discussing here with Emesik and with FT is kind of useless as long as they don't want to read my posting of 9 June where I wrote about mistakes in the lead (which they perhaps don't want to know about and therefore don't want to read about?). @Emesik: As I said before: I think a lead section usually doesn’t need many direct source references, if any. The present opening sentence [A] is a simple definition. Sentence [B] is easily to be checked in section 2.1; etc. The idea of a lead section is not to repeat and source again what is said lower in the article, but to shortly summarize the lower sections; in that case, direct references are unnecessary and disadvisable, or even forbidden, to my opinion. Any subject in Wikipedia is only one time presented in full detail, and that is the (only) place where those facts ought to be sourced/referenced. Other places in Wikipedia should then only direct to that place where that subject is treated in full length (like for example a lead section directs to the lower sections of its own article). If you agree with the text of the present lead, I don't know which references you would like to add to it, but go ahead and add references, and motivate that. If someone then strongly disagrees he might wish to remove some of them, again, ofcourse. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 17:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe visitors come to Wikipedia’s page ' Syrian Civil War' to read facts about that war, not personal fantasies or interpretations of one or two Wiki contributors. The edit in the lead section of 15June2014,16:30, was unmotivated, and is therefore now reverted. Read in my explanation on 9June2014 what is wrong with assertions reintroduced in the lead section on 15June2014 such as: known as… , armed conflict…, between forces… , started as civil uprisings… , Arab Spring… , within the framework… , began in March… , in Daraa… , April nationwide… , quell… , fired on… , sieges… , developed into… , asymmetrical…, clashes in many towns… -- Corriebertus ( talk) 14:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Sources from 22/6/14 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/israel-air-strikes-syria http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.600486
However since January 2013 Israel launch around more than 30 military attacks against Syrian Army position they never attack the Insurgents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
In all, Israel said it struck nine military targets inside Syria, and "direct hits were confirmed."
The targets were located near the site of Sunday's violence in the Golan Heights and included a regional military command centre and unspecified "launching positions." There was no immediate response from Syria.
In Sunday's attack, an Israeli civilian vehicle was struck by forces in Syria as it drove in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights.
'A teenage boy was killed and two other people were wounded in the first deadly incident along the volatile Israeli-Syrian front since Syria's civil war erupted more than three years ago.
'Israel has carefully monitored the fighting in Syria, but has generally kept its distance and avoided taking sides.'
'On several occasions, mortar shells and other types of fire have landed on the Israeli side of the de facto border, drawing limited Israeli reprisals.'
'Israel is also believed to have carried out several airstrikes on arms shipments it believed to be headed from Syria to Hezbollah militants in neighbouring Lebanon.'
'It was not immediately clear whether Syrian troops or one of the many rebel groups battling the government carried out Sunday's deadly attack in the Golan. Lerner said it was clear that the attack was intentional.'
'Israel has repeatedly said it holds the Syrian government responsible for any attacks emanating from its territory, regardless of who actually carries them out.'
'Israeli police identified the boy as Mohammed Karaka, 14, of the Arab village of Arraba in northern Israel. Local media said he had accompanied his father, the truck driver, to work.'
Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he spoke to the boy's father and sent his condolences. "Our enemies don't differentiate between Jews and non-Jews, adults and children," he told an international gathering of Jewish journalists.
'Netanyahu said in conflicts like Syria, where al-Qaida-inspired extremists are battling Iranian-backed Syrian troops, there is no good choice and it is best for Israel to sit back and let its enemies weaken each other.' the article seems not to say 'Israel supports the insurgents' as you headline this section. though I don't suppose what RS actually say interests you very much. Sayerslle ( talk) 11:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The 47th @THE_47th · 3h
7 or 8 Israeli strikes ago Assad ws on Manar TV & said: "I confirm 2 u, any new Israeli strike on Syria will be met w/immediate retaliation"
Sayerslle ( talk) 13:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
@funkmok I don't believe assad lives ona Russian ship - you are again not AGF are you , - 'have some arbitrary fun'?? - I do believe you are protected by admins and are left free to insult people and never AGF , why I don't know, - a sfor your insane remarks on Ukraine - 'One Igor Girkin (aka Strelkov) heads up the Donbass People’s Militia. In an interview with Pravda, Girkin revealed that his troops had experience fighting for the Russian armed forces in Chechnya, Central Asia, Yugoslavia, Iraq and even Syria.' - you think putinRussia is the saintly savior of the world? omg. Sayerslle ( talk) 11:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
These are sources from January 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/world/middleeast/syrian-weapons-center-said-to-be-damaged.html?_r=0 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/01/31/israels-strike-on-syria-as-a-dress-rehearsal-for-conflict-with-iran/
Since January 2013 still today Israel military doing military attack against Syrian army sites they never attack the insurgents only the regime since the conflict star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by without drama just need to Put the Israeli flag on Armament support for Position -- LogFTW ( talk) 14:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC) LogFTW ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense. The latest incident was a minor border clash with the Syrian army. It was unrelated to the rebels. Israel does not support groups that wants to see the destruction of Israel.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 23:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
There no was a "minor border" clash according by Israel were air strikes attacking the 'the headquarters of several Syrian army units' these attacks are concerned and periodic since January 2013
And these news trikes so there are no "border clashed" since 2013 star Israel doing concerted Attack against Syrian Army, Israel NEVER attack the Insurgents only the Syrian troops
Lest see =
So we have =
A LOT sources confirmed that we are not talking if the level from Israel support to Insurgency in Syria is too much or poor but the Israeli support to Armed insurgency in Syria proved be real
How many Military attack Launch US against Syrian Army? 0 How many Military attack Launch Saudi Arabia against Syrian Army? 0 How many Military attack Launch Qatar against Syrian Army? 0 How many Military attack Launch Turkey against Syrian Army? Severals but less than Israel
How many Military attack Launch Israel against Syrian Army? Severals more than Turkey.
Why US, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia Flag deserved be in Support for the Insurgents and no Israel?
Israel flag should be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW ( talk • contribs) 12:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
On several occasions, mortar shells and other types of fire have landed on the Israeli side of the de facto border, drawing limited Israeli reprisals.
Israel is also believed to have carried out several airstrikes on arms shipments it believed to be headed from Syria to Hezbollah militants in neighbouring Lebanon. - thats what you [3] linked to. thats how RS are reporting things. this is likely because it bears close resemblance to reality. for unreal-ler views you should read globalresearch/russiatoday/mintpress etc and there youll see stuff like ghouta chemical attacks was Saudi/turkey/anybodybutassadregime kind of thing and then you'll be happy. Sayerslle ( talk) 14:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hezbollah no fight the anti government Insurgents in Syria too Hezbollah and Syrian State are ALLIED-
Hezbollah is PART of the conflict and allied from Syrians troops.
So Israel claim attack Hezbollah and Syrian Army both - Insurgents in Syria (FSA, Al Qaeda, Islamic Front) Fight Hezbollah and Syrian Army both...... Common I link more than 20+ Sources who confirms Israel attack many times the Syrian troops is time to put on the article a Israel support
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/178084
Just put the Israeli Flag in Armament Support because MANY sources confirmed that http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.600486 ..( talk) 14:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
'Aymenn J Al-Tamimi @ajaltamimi · Jun 24
Always baffles me how ISIS must be supposed to be an 'agent of/colluding with' X, Y and Z. ISIS is its own thing, people' - and ISIS seems to be about something like the reconquest of Jerusalem or something, a caliphate? encompassing parts of Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Jordan - ISIS should be separated maybe. its about its own thing. Sayerslle ( talk) 18:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The Haaretz article linked does not say anything about Isreael supporting the rebels. In fact, the article says that the IDF said "We will not tolerate attacks on Israeli citizens or on IDF troops. Anyone who tries to disrupt our lives will pay a heavy price, whether it is the Syrian army or terrorist groups operating on Syrian territory." Clearly Israel is not involved in the Syrian civil war and it is not taking sides.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 00:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
^ Israel only attack Syrian Army or Hezbollah never others armed groups - Israel never bombing a single time Al Qaeda, FSA positions in more than three years of conflict, Israel did (According by Israeli press) at least 30 attacks against Syrian Army position since January 2013 we can considered it as a clear very solid evidence from Israeli military support for anti regime insurgent.
What are the fear complexes to add the Israeli flag on "Armament support" for the Insurgents after MANY evidences confirmed it ?
I no understand, seems it's a complexes by some users here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW ( talk • contribs) 10:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I regard claims of Israeli involvement on either of this civil war to be propaganda. If Israel has any strategic interest in this conflict it is that it wants it to continue for as long as possible. As the Israelis themselves put it: "on one side you have Hezbollah and Iran, and on the other side you have Al-Qaeda and the Islamists. So all we have to do is sit back and watch the fireworks." If anything the Israelis are trying to aid BOTH sides of this conflict. Claiming that your enemies are in league with the Zionists and that you are the champion who liberate Palestine is one of the common political tactics in the Arab world and it should not surprise anyone that both the Syrian Opposition and the Government accuse the other of being Zionist agents and have "evidence" supporting those charges. What is surprising is that people here actually think that such claims amount to anything other than typical Middle Eastern politics.
Mr Hague also announced that the UK would increase support to Syria's moderate opposition and urged other countries to do the same. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28036470 -- LogFTW ( talk) 10:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
So, unlike most thinking people, Mr Hague seems unconcerned about the dangers of arming, aiding and supporting the rebels in Syria. Or is it that only he can tell the nice FSA from the nasty ISIS? Then again, by aiding the 'good' rebels - and undermining the Assad government - do not the UK and US regimes bear any responsibility for creating the conditions in which terrorism can thrive? 92.16.152.164 ( talk) 16:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Can Someone please edit Al Nusra front strength with this newer source
strength: 5,000–6,000
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/06/11/why-is-jabhat-al-nusra-no-longer-useful-to-turkey
Jumada ( talk) 21:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I've been editing this article and I have found that one of the key issues in the article being too long is that the conflict is described almost day by day. This is too much detail! To reduce the length of the article, much of this day-by-day description needs to be replaced by summaries of the main points. The day-by-day description of events could be transferred to new articles. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 12:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This war is obviously being fought between four sides: Syrian government, Syrian opposition, Kurds and Islamic State. So, why are there only 3 columns in the infobox with Islamic State shown allied with Syrian opposition? Syrian opposition is in better relationships with Kurds than with Islamic State, yet they aren't shown together. So, why can't Islamic State be shown in separate column as well? -- 83.0.151.26 ( talk) 18:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
According to the Washington Post on April 17, 2011, the US State Department has “secretly financed Syrian political opposition groups and related projects, including a satellite TV channel that beams anti-government programming into the country, according to previously undisclosed diplomatic cables.” This is part of a growing body-of-evidence, showing that what happened in Syria is the same tactic used in the US backed 'Color' Revolutions. Showing that stories of brave home-grown protesters are far from the whole picture. And that, far from any 'Syrian Spring', this was a false spring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.152.164 ( talk) 17:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
War In West Asia | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of Arab Spring and Iraq War | ||||||||
As of June 2014. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Belligerents | ||||||||
Supported by Supported by |
Supported by |
| ||||||
Commanders and leaders | ||||||||
|
| |||||||
Strength | ||||||||
Iraqi Armed Forces
|
Islamic Front
|
| ||||||
Casualties and losses | ||||||||
|
Maybe it's time for either this article to be expanded to include the conflict in Iraq, or for another broader article encompassing both? (Here is an infobox I made. Mainly because I wanted to practice making infoboxes, but it could be used as an early template I guess.) [ Posted on 6July2014,21:42, by 82.10.53.163 ]
What is the total number of foreigners fighting for the rebels if 15,500 out of the 50 - 60 thousand killed on the side of the rebels are foreigners?
Seems like this is not a domestic revolution, but war imported on a country.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.18.64 ( talk) 18:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&direction=next&oldid=588597756
This map here as well as all others don't appear to load properly unless it is of the most recent version — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.141.234 ( talk) 04:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Since 19April2011, our basic, most detailed recount of events in the Syrian 2011 uprising was located in “main article” Timeline of the 2011 Syrian protests (later retitled as ‘…uprising’, later ‘…civil war’), leaving a summary and a clear directing link to that ‘main article’ in the top of article ‘2011 Syrian protests’ (later titled ‘ Syrian Civil War’) , section 2. This hierarchical Wikipedia principle was broken on 6May2011 by the way how EkoGraf introduced an article called ‘Siege of Daraa’ covering events 25April–5May2011. Those events being part of that ‘Syrian uprising’ normally ought to have been in detail presented in mentioned Timeline. Early 7May2011 however, detailed events in Daraa in those 11 days were, differently, recounted in two articles: ‘Timeline’, and ‘Siege of Daraa’. Such parallel presentation must, as we know, be actively avoided in Wikipedia.
Somewhere in the weeks after 6May2011 however, a ‘main article:Siege of Daraa’ was constructed by someone as subarticle to ‘25April2011’ in ‘Timeline’ (see for example version 30June2011), and clearly not according to the Wiki standards.
Your question number one - Why did I start the article? NOTABILITY (per Wikipedia policy). The protests in Daraa and the subsequent two-week siege and military operations in question were the flashpoint events that started the civil war in Syria, not to mention this was covered enough at that time in the reliable and notable media outlets. Also, this would be the answer to your request on a good reason for a main article Daraa25April–5May2011.
Your question number two - Which meaning of ‘siege’ do I mean? First of, quoting the definition of the word siege from the dictionary is all OK, but irrelevant on Wikipedia if the COMMONNAME (per Wikipedia policy) of the event is siege.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] We go with the common name.
Your question number three or rather assertion - That the start date of the event/siege is not 25 April and the end date is not 5 May. The sources I listed above clearly point out that 25 April is the start date of the event/siege, especially the highly reliable and notable CNN. Also, sources from 5 May clearly stated that offensive military operations that started 25 April had ended 5 May after the last of the resistance had been eliminated
[10]
[11]
[12]. Your subsequent sources about the military continuing being present in and around Daraa does not in any way indicate a siege of the city continues, especially if the military already controls the whole city, which was fulfilled by 5 May. They continue to conduct raids yes, they continue to have skirmishes yes, they continue to have checkpoints around the city yes, they continue to have a presence in the city as well yes, but that all fits what a regular Army does when facing an insurgency.
As for how other editors constructed the article to more resemble the timeline article, I was not responsible for that and actually agree with you the article would need to be re-written and some info maybe removed from the timeline article so the Siege of Daraa would be the real main one.
EkoGraf (
talk) 15:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
At the bottom of this page, (at present) three references are given, which belong to (perhaps different) sections much higher on the page. This is a very confusing situation. What is a technical fix for this phenomenon? -- Corriebertus ( talk) 13:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Could create an article about the spillover of the Iraq war in northeastern Syria or even in Syrian Kurdistan as such in the article 2014 Northern Iraq offensive? 189.61.191.13 ( talk) 14:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
lets start with Nusra front
old strength in article: 7,000-8,000 new current strength: 5,000-6,000
source: http://www.heartsofiron4.com/r/xzu79nziq7
Jumada ( talk) 23:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
According to SOHR, ISIS now has 50,000 fighters in Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 ( talk) 20:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Given that US involvement in supporting Color Revolts is well recorded, and considering the evidence that - far from 'freedom-loving' home grown protesters - it the US that helped start and maintain the Syrian Civil War, would not section on this be helpful in understanding the conflict? 92.20.224.168 ( talk) 13:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
@ funkmonk - this cartoon can help explain to you the quiet maybe [14] Sayerslle ( talk) 16:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The section on the Assad government highlights how "Syria became an independent republic in 1946, though democratic rule was ended by a CIA-supported coup in March 1949". Not only does this call into question statements about ‘home-grown’ protests, but is a another indication that this conflict could be the result of Western involvement. Might Wikipedia reflect this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.162.140 ( talk) 21:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
So, should the Syrian Civil War (section) reflect past US involvement in the undermining the Syrian Government?
92.24.233.185 ( talk) 12:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Given the ever-growing concerns about ISIS terror gangs, why does Wikipedia continue to maintain the statement that: "the vast majority of abuses, as well as the largest in scale, were being committed by the Syrian government"? In light of latest events, should not this questionable statement be updated? 92.24.233.185 ( talk) 12:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
TonyClarke ( talk) 08:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
In the most recent entry of Syrian_Civil_War#ISIS_offensive_and_continued_fighting_.28July_2014_-_ongoing.29 Tabqa airbase is mentioned. Is Tabqa just an airbase, or also a quarter or a town? We don't seem to have an entry for either and the news reports are also not too precise. Maybe somebody could also update the disambiguation page. --- Tobias1984 ( talk) 11:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
There is the town of Tabqa, on the bank of the lake, and the Tabqa air base some dozens of miles to the south. EkoGraf ( talk) 08:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Belligerents of the Syrian Civil War was apparently copied from this article and doesn't add anything new. Therefore I have nominated it for deletion some time ago. Can the resident editors here join the discussion ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belligerents of the Syrian Civil War) to generate more thoughts on the issue? Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 17:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear colleagues. The article is horrifyingly long, and keeps getting longer. It's now 278,000 bytes; no doubt a vast majority of us consider that (highly) undesirable, unpractical, et cetera (as is also signaled by the tag above the article since Nov.2013, when it was still 'only' 200,000 bytes). Last time we discussed this issue was here, discussion 'Article length issue', in July2014. Last time someone attempted shortening the article, it was perhaps me, here in this edit on 6Dec2013, but I was then mercilessly reverted by some colleague. Can please one of the other very experienced editors on this page make an attempt, in which ever way, to considerably shorten this main article? -- Corriebertus ( talk) 18:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
There's a move discussion at Talk:2014_American_rescue_mission_in_Syria#Move_request_-_9_September_2014 to move 2014 American rescue mission in Syria back to original title 2014 American operations in Syria. With surveillance flights ongoing and airstrikes soon to happen there needs to be a place to put this.~ Technophant ( talk) 21:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
"US/CIA involvement and operations within Syria"?
Perhaps there could such a section, which - if news comes in of a rescue mission - might be updated?
92.20.243.207 ( talk) 11:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
There should be 5 belligerents: government, FSA, ISIS, Kurds, the US. The US started air strikes on ISIS in Syria.
Why is the Syria Revolutionaries Front listed separately from the Free Syrian Army in the infobox if it is established the SRF is actually an alliance of 14 FSA brigades? This would actually mean the SRF is a branch of the FSA...possibly its largest, but still part of the FSA. Based on this the SRF should be removed from the infobox since we don't list individual units of the top rebel organisations. EkoGraf ( talk) 23:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
There's been a lot of talk lately about a new rebel group fighting in Syria called Khorasan. How come they don't have an article yet? Charles Essie ( talk) 02:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
This section ‘ Free Syrian Army’ in article Syrian Civil War contained lots of information that were not at all presented in what it nevertheless called its ‘main article: Free Syrian Army’. That was technically a very incorrect situation in Wikipedia. I’ve therefore copied those informations to the now truly ‘main article Free Syrian Army’ (in its sections 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8), and in return placed a summary of that now updated ‘main article’ now here in this section SCW#FSA, with special attention to some topics that formerly were treated here at great length: US transfer of $123 million; FSA admitting that ‘the rebels’ were badly fragmented (May 2013); direct talks with the Assad government (August 2013); FSA members running over to Islamic State (August 2014). Of course, you may wish to adapt this here summary further, but please keep it concise, leaving the long stories where they belong, in the genuine ‘main article’. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 11:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Section 2.2 (‘Protests and armed insurgency (July–October 2011)’) started with six sentences about FSA (Free Syrian Army), which I’ll indicate here with their number and one of their first significant words (for example: [1,seven], [4,grow]). Sentences [3] and [4] were unsourced. Sentence [5,remained] was off-topic where it spoke of Dec2012(belongs in sect.2.3–2.7). The rest of sentences [5] and [6,insurgent] were off-topic because our section 2 is for the proceedings of the war, not for describing actors like FSA (which belongs in main article ‘ Free Syrian Army’). Sentence [2,Composed] was partly unsourced (‘volunteers’), and partly repeating sentence 1: therefore, I’ve integrated its extra information into sentence [1], and removed old sentences [3,4,5 and 6]. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 11:31, 25 September 2014 (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 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
My proposed begin of the lead section stands below under point 7 boldly printed, but this is my motivation:
Gentlemen, I made an edit on page SCW, with a (rather longish) motivation on Talk page. You two refuse to read that motivation, which seems to me totally not-Wiki, and unpolite. Only saying that my motivation was “too long” (after which standards?) is a personal attack, in the sense that it denies my basic right (vital for Wikipedia !) to motivate an edit in my own words. In short: you violate basic politeness and Wiki philosophy and guidelines. That makes it rather impossible to further ‘discuss’ with you here. I’m not going to go on with repeating myself, and contradicting things like: ‘…did not come out of the blue…’ which is rather an absurd thing to say, considering the amount of work I’ve done myself to show that indeed the lead section did not come out of the blue. The point I’ve been making some five times now, is that the lead contained (sometimes rather old) mistakes. It’s rather a nonsensical, insulting to say that I “just threw things overboard”: I’ve scrupulously motivated what and why I’ve removed from the article. As for FT: where did I say the lead is a Timeline? (And please stop writing ‘lede’ if your English is supposed to be superior to mine.) If you want a better lead, then make it, and please have the courtesy (and cooperative Wiki-ness) to motivate your possible edit. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 08:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
@Emesik: my remark about superior (= better) English was not directed at you, but at FT who commented lastly on my language as 'choppy' but himself (incorrectly) writes 'lede' where he probably means 'lead'. @FT and everyone: I was rather angry about behavior of FT on 12 June. If he took part of my answer on 12 June (which I strike now) as an attack, I apologize for it. @Emesik and FutureTrillionaire (FT): I've tried to politely say to you and everyone that discussing here with Emesik and with FT is kind of useless as long as they don't want to read my posting of 9 June where I wrote about mistakes in the lead (which they perhaps don't want to know about and therefore don't want to read about?). @Emesik: As I said before: I think a lead section usually doesn’t need many direct source references, if any. The present opening sentence [A] is a simple definition. Sentence [B] is easily to be checked in section 2.1; etc. The idea of a lead section is not to repeat and source again what is said lower in the article, but to shortly summarize the lower sections; in that case, direct references are unnecessary and disadvisable, or even forbidden, to my opinion. Any subject in Wikipedia is only one time presented in full detail, and that is the (only) place where those facts ought to be sourced/referenced. Other places in Wikipedia should then only direct to that place where that subject is treated in full length (like for example a lead section directs to the lower sections of its own article). If you agree with the text of the present lead, I don't know which references you would like to add to it, but go ahead and add references, and motivate that. If someone then strongly disagrees he might wish to remove some of them, again, ofcourse. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 17:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe visitors come to Wikipedia’s page ' Syrian Civil War' to read facts about that war, not personal fantasies or interpretations of one or two Wiki contributors. The edit in the lead section of 15June2014,16:30, was unmotivated, and is therefore now reverted. Read in my explanation on 9June2014 what is wrong with assertions reintroduced in the lead section on 15June2014 such as: known as… , armed conflict…, between forces… , started as civil uprisings… , Arab Spring… , within the framework… , began in March… , in Daraa… , April nationwide… , quell… , fired on… , sieges… , developed into… , asymmetrical…, clashes in many towns… -- Corriebertus ( talk) 14:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Sources from 22/6/14 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/23/israel-air-strikes-syria http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.600486
However since January 2013 Israel launch around more than 30 military attacks against Syrian Army position they never attack the Insurgents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW ( talk • contribs) 02:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
In all, Israel said it struck nine military targets inside Syria, and "direct hits were confirmed."
The targets were located near the site of Sunday's violence in the Golan Heights and included a regional military command centre and unspecified "launching positions." There was no immediate response from Syria.
In Sunday's attack, an Israeli civilian vehicle was struck by forces in Syria as it drove in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights.
'A teenage boy was killed and two other people were wounded in the first deadly incident along the volatile Israeli-Syrian front since Syria's civil war erupted more than three years ago.
'Israel has carefully monitored the fighting in Syria, but has generally kept its distance and avoided taking sides.'
'On several occasions, mortar shells and other types of fire have landed on the Israeli side of the de facto border, drawing limited Israeli reprisals.'
'Israel is also believed to have carried out several airstrikes on arms shipments it believed to be headed from Syria to Hezbollah militants in neighbouring Lebanon.'
'It was not immediately clear whether Syrian troops or one of the many rebel groups battling the government carried out Sunday's deadly attack in the Golan. Lerner said it was clear that the attack was intentional.'
'Israel has repeatedly said it holds the Syrian government responsible for any attacks emanating from its territory, regardless of who actually carries them out.'
'Israeli police identified the boy as Mohammed Karaka, 14, of the Arab village of Arraba in northern Israel. Local media said he had accompanied his father, the truck driver, to work.'
Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he spoke to the boy's father and sent his condolences. "Our enemies don't differentiate between Jews and non-Jews, adults and children," he told an international gathering of Jewish journalists.
'Netanyahu said in conflicts like Syria, where al-Qaida-inspired extremists are battling Iranian-backed Syrian troops, there is no good choice and it is best for Israel to sit back and let its enemies weaken each other.' the article seems not to say 'Israel supports the insurgents' as you headline this section. though I don't suppose what RS actually say interests you very much. Sayerslle ( talk) 11:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The 47th @THE_47th · 3h
7 or 8 Israeli strikes ago Assad ws on Manar TV & said: "I confirm 2 u, any new Israeli strike on Syria will be met w/immediate retaliation"
Sayerslle ( talk) 13:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
@funkmok I don't believe assad lives ona Russian ship - you are again not AGF are you , - 'have some arbitrary fun'?? - I do believe you are protected by admins and are left free to insult people and never AGF , why I don't know, - a sfor your insane remarks on Ukraine - 'One Igor Girkin (aka Strelkov) heads up the Donbass People’s Militia. In an interview with Pravda, Girkin revealed that his troops had experience fighting for the Russian armed forces in Chechnya, Central Asia, Yugoslavia, Iraq and even Syria.' - you think putinRussia is the saintly savior of the world? omg. Sayerslle ( talk) 11:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
These are sources from January 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/world/middleeast/syrian-weapons-center-said-to-be-damaged.html?_r=0 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/01/31/israels-strike-on-syria-as-a-dress-rehearsal-for-conflict-with-iran/
Since January 2013 still today Israel military doing military attack against Syrian army sites they never attack the insurgents only the regime since the conflict star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by without drama just need to Put the Israeli flag on Armament support for Position -- LogFTW ( talk) 14:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC) LogFTW ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense. The latest incident was a minor border clash with the Syrian army. It was unrelated to the rebels. Israel does not support groups that wants to see the destruction of Israel.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 23:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
There no was a "minor border" clash according by Israel were air strikes attacking the 'the headquarters of several Syrian army units' these attacks are concerned and periodic since January 2013
And these news trikes so there are no "border clashed" since 2013 star Israel doing concerted Attack against Syrian Army, Israel NEVER attack the Insurgents only the Syrian troops
Lest see =
So we have =
A LOT sources confirmed that we are not talking if the level from Israel support to Insurgency in Syria is too much or poor but the Israeli support to Armed insurgency in Syria proved be real
How many Military attack Launch US against Syrian Army? 0 How many Military attack Launch Saudi Arabia against Syrian Army? 0 How many Military attack Launch Qatar against Syrian Army? 0 How many Military attack Launch Turkey against Syrian Army? Severals but less than Israel
How many Military attack Launch Israel against Syrian Army? Severals more than Turkey.
Why US, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia Flag deserved be in Support for the Insurgents and no Israel?
Israel flag should be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW ( talk • contribs) 12:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
On several occasions, mortar shells and other types of fire have landed on the Israeli side of the de facto border, drawing limited Israeli reprisals.
Israel is also believed to have carried out several airstrikes on arms shipments it believed to be headed from Syria to Hezbollah militants in neighbouring Lebanon. - thats what you [3] linked to. thats how RS are reporting things. this is likely because it bears close resemblance to reality. for unreal-ler views you should read globalresearch/russiatoday/mintpress etc and there youll see stuff like ghouta chemical attacks was Saudi/turkey/anybodybutassadregime kind of thing and then you'll be happy. Sayerslle ( talk) 14:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Hezbollah no fight the anti government Insurgents in Syria too Hezbollah and Syrian State are ALLIED-
Hezbollah is PART of the conflict and allied from Syrians troops.
So Israel claim attack Hezbollah and Syrian Army both - Insurgents in Syria (FSA, Al Qaeda, Islamic Front) Fight Hezbollah and Syrian Army both...... Common I link more than 20+ Sources who confirms Israel attack many times the Syrian troops is time to put on the article a Israel support
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/178084
Just put the Israeli Flag in Armament Support because MANY sources confirmed that http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.600486 ..( talk) 14:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
'Aymenn J Al-Tamimi @ajaltamimi · Jun 24
Always baffles me how ISIS must be supposed to be an 'agent of/colluding with' X, Y and Z. ISIS is its own thing, people' - and ISIS seems to be about something like the reconquest of Jerusalem or something, a caliphate? encompassing parts of Iraq, Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Jordan - ISIS should be separated maybe. its about its own thing. Sayerslle ( talk) 18:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The Haaretz article linked does not say anything about Isreael supporting the rebels. In fact, the article says that the IDF said "We will not tolerate attacks on Israeli citizens or on IDF troops. Anyone who tries to disrupt our lives will pay a heavy price, whether it is the Syrian army or terrorist groups operating on Syrian territory." Clearly Israel is not involved in the Syrian civil war and it is not taking sides.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 00:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
^ Israel only attack Syrian Army or Hezbollah never others armed groups - Israel never bombing a single time Al Qaeda, FSA positions in more than three years of conflict, Israel did (According by Israeli press) at least 30 attacks against Syrian Army position since January 2013 we can considered it as a clear very solid evidence from Israeli military support for anti regime insurgent.
What are the fear complexes to add the Israeli flag on "Armament support" for the Insurgents after MANY evidences confirmed it ?
I no understand, seems it's a complexes by some users here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW ( talk • contribs) 10:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I regard claims of Israeli involvement on either of this civil war to be propaganda. If Israel has any strategic interest in this conflict it is that it wants it to continue for as long as possible. As the Israelis themselves put it: "on one side you have Hezbollah and Iran, and on the other side you have Al-Qaeda and the Islamists. So all we have to do is sit back and watch the fireworks." If anything the Israelis are trying to aid BOTH sides of this conflict. Claiming that your enemies are in league with the Zionists and that you are the champion who liberate Palestine is one of the common political tactics in the Arab world and it should not surprise anyone that both the Syrian Opposition and the Government accuse the other of being Zionist agents and have "evidence" supporting those charges. What is surprising is that people here actually think that such claims amount to anything other than typical Middle Eastern politics.
Mr Hague also announced that the UK would increase support to Syria's moderate opposition and urged other countries to do the same. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28036470 -- LogFTW ( talk) 10:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
So, unlike most thinking people, Mr Hague seems unconcerned about the dangers of arming, aiding and supporting the rebels in Syria. Or is it that only he can tell the nice FSA from the nasty ISIS? Then again, by aiding the 'good' rebels - and undermining the Assad government - do not the UK and US regimes bear any responsibility for creating the conditions in which terrorism can thrive? 92.16.152.164 ( talk) 16:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Can Someone please edit Al Nusra front strength with this newer source
strength: 5,000–6,000
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/06/11/why-is-jabhat-al-nusra-no-longer-useful-to-turkey
Jumada ( talk) 21:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I've been editing this article and I have found that one of the key issues in the article being too long is that the conflict is described almost day by day. This is too much detail! To reduce the length of the article, much of this day-by-day description needs to be replaced by summaries of the main points. The day-by-day description of events could be transferred to new articles. OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 12:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
This war is obviously being fought between four sides: Syrian government, Syrian opposition, Kurds and Islamic State. So, why are there only 3 columns in the infobox with Islamic State shown allied with Syrian opposition? Syrian opposition is in better relationships with Kurds than with Islamic State, yet they aren't shown together. So, why can't Islamic State be shown in separate column as well? -- 83.0.151.26 ( talk) 18:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
According to the Washington Post on April 17, 2011, the US State Department has “secretly financed Syrian political opposition groups and related projects, including a satellite TV channel that beams anti-government programming into the country, according to previously undisclosed diplomatic cables.” This is part of a growing body-of-evidence, showing that what happened in Syria is the same tactic used in the US backed 'Color' Revolutions. Showing that stories of brave home-grown protesters are far from the whole picture. And that, far from any 'Syrian Spring', this was a false spring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.152.164 ( talk) 17:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
War In West Asia | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Part of Arab Spring and Iraq War | ||||||||
As of June 2014. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
Belligerents | ||||||||
Supported by Supported by |
Supported by |
| ||||||
Commanders and leaders | ||||||||
|
| |||||||
Strength | ||||||||
Iraqi Armed Forces
|
Islamic Front
|
| ||||||
Casualties and losses | ||||||||
|
Maybe it's time for either this article to be expanded to include the conflict in Iraq, or for another broader article encompassing both? (Here is an infobox I made. Mainly because I wanted to practice making infoboxes, but it could be used as an early template I guess.) [ Posted on 6July2014,21:42, by 82.10.53.163 ]
What is the total number of foreigners fighting for the rebels if 15,500 out of the 50 - 60 thousand killed on the side of the rebels are foreigners?
Seems like this is not a domestic revolution, but war imported on a country.
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.18.64 ( talk) 18:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&direction=next&oldid=588597756
This map here as well as all others don't appear to load properly unless it is of the most recent version — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.141.234 ( talk) 04:48, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Since 19April2011, our basic, most detailed recount of events in the Syrian 2011 uprising was located in “main article” Timeline of the 2011 Syrian protests (later retitled as ‘…uprising’, later ‘…civil war’), leaving a summary and a clear directing link to that ‘main article’ in the top of article ‘2011 Syrian protests’ (later titled ‘ Syrian Civil War’) , section 2. This hierarchical Wikipedia principle was broken on 6May2011 by the way how EkoGraf introduced an article called ‘Siege of Daraa’ covering events 25April–5May2011. Those events being part of that ‘Syrian uprising’ normally ought to have been in detail presented in mentioned Timeline. Early 7May2011 however, detailed events in Daraa in those 11 days were, differently, recounted in two articles: ‘Timeline’, and ‘Siege of Daraa’. Such parallel presentation must, as we know, be actively avoided in Wikipedia.
Somewhere in the weeks after 6May2011 however, a ‘main article:Siege of Daraa’ was constructed by someone as subarticle to ‘25April2011’ in ‘Timeline’ (see for example version 30June2011), and clearly not according to the Wiki standards.
Your question number one - Why did I start the article? NOTABILITY (per Wikipedia policy). The protests in Daraa and the subsequent two-week siege and military operations in question were the flashpoint events that started the civil war in Syria, not to mention this was covered enough at that time in the reliable and notable media outlets. Also, this would be the answer to your request on a good reason for a main article Daraa25April–5May2011.
Your question number two - Which meaning of ‘siege’ do I mean? First of, quoting the definition of the word siege from the dictionary is all OK, but irrelevant on Wikipedia if the COMMONNAME (per Wikipedia policy) of the event is siege.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] We go with the common name.
Your question number three or rather assertion - That the start date of the event/siege is not 25 April and the end date is not 5 May. The sources I listed above clearly point out that 25 April is the start date of the event/siege, especially the highly reliable and notable CNN. Also, sources from 5 May clearly stated that offensive military operations that started 25 April had ended 5 May after the last of the resistance had been eliminated
[10]
[11]
[12]. Your subsequent sources about the military continuing being present in and around Daraa does not in any way indicate a siege of the city continues, especially if the military already controls the whole city, which was fulfilled by 5 May. They continue to conduct raids yes, they continue to have skirmishes yes, they continue to have checkpoints around the city yes, they continue to have a presence in the city as well yes, but that all fits what a regular Army does when facing an insurgency.
As for how other editors constructed the article to more resemble the timeline article, I was not responsible for that and actually agree with you the article would need to be re-written and some info maybe removed from the timeline article so the Siege of Daraa would be the real main one.
EkoGraf (
talk) 15:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
At the bottom of this page, (at present) three references are given, which belong to (perhaps different) sections much higher on the page. This is a very confusing situation. What is a technical fix for this phenomenon? -- Corriebertus ( talk) 13:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Could create an article about the spillover of the Iraq war in northeastern Syria or even in Syrian Kurdistan as such in the article 2014 Northern Iraq offensive? 189.61.191.13 ( talk) 14:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
lets start with Nusra front
old strength in article: 7,000-8,000 new current strength: 5,000-6,000
source: http://www.heartsofiron4.com/r/xzu79nziq7
Jumada ( talk) 23:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
According to SOHR, ISIS now has 50,000 fighters in Syria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 ( talk) 20:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Given that US involvement in supporting Color Revolts is well recorded, and considering the evidence that - far from 'freedom-loving' home grown protesters - it the US that helped start and maintain the Syrian Civil War, would not section on this be helpful in understanding the conflict? 92.20.224.168 ( talk) 13:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
@ funkmonk - this cartoon can help explain to you the quiet maybe [14] Sayerslle ( talk) 16:14, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The section on the Assad government highlights how "Syria became an independent republic in 1946, though democratic rule was ended by a CIA-supported coup in March 1949". Not only does this call into question statements about ‘home-grown’ protests, but is a another indication that this conflict could be the result of Western involvement. Might Wikipedia reflect this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.162.140 ( talk) 21:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
So, should the Syrian Civil War (section) reflect past US involvement in the undermining the Syrian Government?
92.24.233.185 ( talk) 12:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Given the ever-growing concerns about ISIS terror gangs, why does Wikipedia continue to maintain the statement that: "the vast majority of abuses, as well as the largest in scale, were being committed by the Syrian government"? In light of latest events, should not this questionable statement be updated? 92.24.233.185 ( talk) 12:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
TonyClarke ( talk) 08:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
In the most recent entry of Syrian_Civil_War#ISIS_offensive_and_continued_fighting_.28July_2014_-_ongoing.29 Tabqa airbase is mentioned. Is Tabqa just an airbase, or also a quarter or a town? We don't seem to have an entry for either and the news reports are also not too precise. Maybe somebody could also update the disambiguation page. --- Tobias1984 ( talk) 11:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
There is the town of Tabqa, on the bank of the lake, and the Tabqa air base some dozens of miles to the south. EkoGraf ( talk) 08:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Belligerents of the Syrian Civil War was apparently copied from this article and doesn't add anything new. Therefore I have nominated it for deletion some time ago. Can the resident editors here join the discussion ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belligerents of the Syrian Civil War) to generate more thoughts on the issue? Fitzcarmalan ( talk) 17:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear colleagues. The article is horrifyingly long, and keeps getting longer. It's now 278,000 bytes; no doubt a vast majority of us consider that (highly) undesirable, unpractical, et cetera (as is also signaled by the tag above the article since Nov.2013, when it was still 'only' 200,000 bytes). Last time we discussed this issue was here, discussion 'Article length issue', in July2014. Last time someone attempted shortening the article, it was perhaps me, here in this edit on 6Dec2013, but I was then mercilessly reverted by some colleague. Can please one of the other very experienced editors on this page make an attempt, in which ever way, to considerably shorten this main article? -- Corriebertus ( talk) 18:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
There's a move discussion at Talk:2014_American_rescue_mission_in_Syria#Move_request_-_9_September_2014 to move 2014 American rescue mission in Syria back to original title 2014 American operations in Syria. With surveillance flights ongoing and airstrikes soon to happen there needs to be a place to put this.~ Technophant ( talk) 21:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
"US/CIA involvement and operations within Syria"?
Perhaps there could such a section, which - if news comes in of a rescue mission - might be updated?
92.20.243.207 ( talk) 11:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
There should be 5 belligerents: government, FSA, ISIS, Kurds, the US. The US started air strikes on ISIS in Syria.
Why is the Syria Revolutionaries Front listed separately from the Free Syrian Army in the infobox if it is established the SRF is actually an alliance of 14 FSA brigades? This would actually mean the SRF is a branch of the FSA...possibly its largest, but still part of the FSA. Based on this the SRF should be removed from the infobox since we don't list individual units of the top rebel organisations. EkoGraf ( talk) 23:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
There's been a lot of talk lately about a new rebel group fighting in Syria called Khorasan. How come they don't have an article yet? Charles Essie ( talk) 02:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
This section ‘ Free Syrian Army’ in article Syrian Civil War contained lots of information that were not at all presented in what it nevertheless called its ‘main article: Free Syrian Army’. That was technically a very incorrect situation in Wikipedia. I’ve therefore copied those informations to the now truly ‘main article Free Syrian Army’ (in its sections 1.3, 1.5, 1.7, 1.8), and in return placed a summary of that now updated ‘main article’ now here in this section SCW#FSA, with special attention to some topics that formerly were treated here at great length: US transfer of $123 million; FSA admitting that ‘the rebels’ were badly fragmented (May 2013); direct talks with the Assad government (August 2013); FSA members running over to Islamic State (August 2014). Of course, you may wish to adapt this here summary further, but please keep it concise, leaving the long stories where they belong, in the genuine ‘main article’. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 11:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Section 2.2 (‘Protests and armed insurgency (July–October 2011)’) started with six sentences about FSA (Free Syrian Army), which I’ll indicate here with their number and one of their first significant words (for example: [1,seven], [4,grow]). Sentences [3] and [4] were unsourced. Sentence [5,remained] was off-topic where it spoke of Dec2012(belongs in sect.2.3–2.7). The rest of sentences [5] and [6,insurgent] were off-topic because our section 2 is for the proceedings of the war, not for describing actors like FSA (which belongs in main article ‘ Free Syrian Army’). Sentence [2,Composed] was partly unsourced (‘volunteers’), and partly repeating sentence 1: therefore, I’ve integrated its extra information into sentence [1], and removed old sentences [3,4,5 and 6]. -- Corriebertus ( talk) 11:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)