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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
"27. In Homs, Idlib and Hama, the Observer Mission witnessed acts of violence being committed against Government forces and civilians that resulted in several deaths and injuries. Examples of those acts include the bombing of a civilian bus, killing eight persons and injuring others, including women and children, and the bombing of a train carrying diesel oil. In another incident in Homs, a police bus was blown up, killing two police officers. A fuel pipeline and some small bridges were also bombed. 28. The Mission noted that many parties falsely reported that explosions or violence had occurred in several locations. When the observers went to those locations, they found that those reports were unfounded. 29. The Mission also noted that, according to its teams in the field, the media exaggerated the nature of the incidents and the number of persons killed in incidents and protests in certain towns."
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf 58.210.98.134 ( talk) 16:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The reason why we don't include it is because there are so many parts that report that can be used for and against, it just turns into a flame war. Consequently we don't use firts hand sources like that. This has already been discussed. Sopher99 ( talk) 16:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
For example, why don't we include this?
74. In some cities, the Mission sensed the extreme tension, oppression and injustice from which the Syrian people are suffering. However, the citizens believe the crisis should be resolved peacefully through Arab mediation alone, without international intervention. Doing so would allow them to live in peace and complete the reform process and bring about the change they desire. The Mission was informed by the opposition, particularly in Dar‘a, Homs, Hama and Idlib, that some of its members had taken up arms in response to the suffering of the Syrian people as a result of the regime’s oppression and tyranny; corruption, which affects all sectors of society; the use of torture by the security agencies; and human rights violations.
Further more the report has been criticized by arab governments themselves as not being serious or truthful. Sopher99 ( talk) 16:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
ChronicalUsual ( talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The article only has so much room. Can we please make a separate page already regarding the arab league report? Jordan Tunisia Morocco Libya also criticized the mission. Sopher99 ( talk) 16:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Can we agree to make a separate article entirely compromising of the Arab League report? Sopher99 ( talk) 16:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Have any news sources started to call the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising a civil war? 70.179.36.58 ( talk) 04:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Time Magazine has. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I7laseral, Multiple scholarly references have been given which you seem to not have read or not care about, referring to "no evidence". That is evidence: multiple respected scholars. I'm now adding a fourth refernece and will add more maybe, but you need to stop the policy-violating deletions/undos.
"It does matter if the professor mentioned it in his book, no evidence what so-ever. No witnesses to this, no leaks, no admission, and even the Syrian government does not accuse)"
1. I assume you meant "it does NOT matter if.."
2. "no leaks, no admission" Did you not read my previous Edit Comments? Former CIA agent Wilbur Eveland not only admitted it but said why the coup was carried out ("in order to obtain Syrian government ratification of TAPLINE")
3. "even the Syrian governmetn does not accuse"?
This is not particularly helpful or relevant; secondly, how do you know, unless you carried out a full serach of all statements by the Syrian government? Thirdly, which government? There have been many since 1949. Have you searched for records of government statements by *all* previous Syrian governments since 1949? I very much doubt it. In any case, it does not tell us very much whether (in *public*) the Syrian government (this one or previous) talks about this 1949 event.
4. "No witnesses to this"
If China used covert operatives to act against another country, would you or any one of us consider "no witnesses" to be a reason to say something didn't happen? Of course not.
This is the inherent U.S.-centric bias all of us must guard against: we cannot have one reasonable level of evidence "if China did it" like citing three scholars, but then turn around and have a completely different, far higher standard of evidence "if the U.S. did it"
Maybe the idea of a CIA operation is shocking, because they don't teach us in school about the 1954 overthrow of Guatemala's democratically elected president Arbentz Guzman (I see we do have 1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'état) or the CIA's involvement in the 1953 overthrow of the democratically elected Mosaddegh in Iran (see 4th paragraph of Mohammad_Mosaddegh). Perhaps you should read up on this background, and you'd be less shocked at this 1949 CIA coup. We Americans should find be embrrassing that we know so little of the history of our own government. As for the CIA supported coup in Syria, I am ashamed to say I did not know about it until relatively recently. But once we know, there is no excuse for bias on Wikipedia to protect from posting something embarrassing to Washington.
There are now provided three full references. This is more solid documentation than for most other things stated in this article. Maybe "more solid" is appropriate given the nature of this event, but then very well, this "more solid" level has now been achieved:
1. Joseph Massad, professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University. Published in Nov. 2011.
2. Article by Douglas Little, Professor, Depart-ment of History, Clark University, citing also declassified records. Article from May 2003.
(2.5) There is also a 1990 article by Prof. Little, in Middle East Journal, Vol 44 No 1, Winter 1990, "Cold War and Covert Action: The United States and Syria, 1945-1958" see http://www.jstor.org/pss/4328056 but only the first page is visible. Could still add as additional reference.
3. Now also a scholarly work by Irene Gendzier ( http://www.bu.edu/polisci/people/faculty/gendzier/ ) professor of Political Science at Boston University, in her book published by columbia University Press in 1997.
Specific page, p. 98 is given, and is even viewable on books.google.com. There is additional information on the coup on other pages. Additionally as noted, former CIA agent Wilbur Eveland not only admitted it but said why the coup was carried out (in order to obtain Syrian government ratification of TAPLINE)
I can easily find another one, but don't want to over-do the references right now.
If you were not aware of the wealth of evidence, that is understandable, neither was I not that long ago.
nWhat is not ok however, is to have one reasonable level of evidence "if Chi a did it" like citing three scholars, but then turn around and have a completely different, far higher standard of evidence "if the U.S. did it"
What is not ok is for you to keep deleting *very* well multiple-scholar referenced facts like the CIA's role in the 1949 coup, and to just repeat "no evidence what-so-ever" over and over again, despite the copious amounts of evidence as just cited in journal articles (2.5), books and articles by prestigious well known universities, just because you don't like the facts: THAT IS VIOLATING WIKIPEDIA POLICIES. PLEASE STOP THESE DELETIONS (but I will add reference (2.5) and maybe another, just food good measure. Happy?) Harel ( talk) 04:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Please
It doesn't matter if a dozen scholars write in their article how they believe there were cia agents involved
Everyday, dozens of "scholars" and "reporters" write about how the USA is part of the illuminati, responsible for 911, is plotting a NWO, and worships Baphomet. Doesn't mean its credible.
You have no evidence, just a dozen people saying "the cia definitely did it". I can find 1000 scholars/historian/pundits right now who would say the USA was behind 911, does not mean we make note of it every time we mentioned 911.
I7laseral ( talk) 04:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
"""In fact, you cannot find 100 articles in peer-reviewed well-know established journals that "Bush ordered 9/11 attacks" or other such claims. You can find self-appointed scholars for anything.
The text about the CIA's involvement in the 1949 coup strikes me as defensive editing - dumping a list of sources into the text of an article in order to solidify the grounds for including some text. The result is that the list of sources is digressive and irrelevant to the casual reader. I skimmed the Douglas Little article on JSTOR and I agree that there is sufficient sourcing to indicate that there was some CIA involvement in the 1949 coup - or at least to support text that says some historians say there was such involvement. However, I'm not clear why a discussion of CIA involvement in 1949 is relevant. Is someone trying to insinuate something about American intervention around the world? Because this isn't the place for that. (Nor is it clear to me that a coup wouldn't have taken place without CIA involvement, given the whole series of coups that occurred in the years following the Israeli victory in 1948 - many of which - take Nasser for instance - had nothing to do with the CIA) What relevance does the CIA's involvement in the 1949 coup have to THIS article? GabrielF ( talk) 05:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Ga
Agreed, we might as well put in the history of the Assyrians while we are at it, additionally, that paragraph looked to be written as if it was trying to prove point. Sopher99 ( talk) 12:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand this debate as well. Wether the CIA was involved or not has very little to do with this article.-- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 16:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
We are not talking about the reliability, we are talking about the necessity of the subject itself. If you want to talk about the reliability of the sources engage in the discussion above this one. Sopher99 ( talk) 19:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
(indent) I agree that information about the 1949 coup is certainly relevant, but to state as a fact that it was the point where democracy was overturned is a bit too much. Especially that there is a divergence of opinion on the matter. Moubayed feels that the point where democracy was overturned (effectively and for good) came actually with the UAR, because it was the point when the parliamentary system in Syria was replaced with a highly-centralized presidential regime (akin to what we'll witness later under Baath). Add to that that the years between Shishakli's downfall (to a popular uprising, in part) in 1954, and 1958 were relatively democratic years that saw the only peaceful (and normal) transition of power in Syria's history from a sitting president to an elected one (Atassi to Quwatli). Just something to keep in mind. Yazan ( talk) 20:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I support Tiamut's revised paragraph. Sopher99 ( talk) 21:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help). Khadduri discusses how the Quwatli regime was regarded as corrupt and oligarchic and that al-Zaim, who came to power in the first coup, ordered elections with universal suffrage (including women). Harel seems to be making an argument above that there was democracy, then there was a CIA-sponsored coup and then there was never democracy again. Hence his discussion of how the CIA "is nothing less than of the key players on the planet today", etc. I appreciate that Tiamut and Yazan are approaching this with a more appropriate degree of nuance.
GabrielF (
talk) 23:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
While fixing minor formatting of reference I've added, I found these much earlier (in article) refs:
^ Cite error: Invalid < ref > tag; no text was provided for refs named Saqba; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text ^ Cite error: Invalid < ref > tag; no text was provided for refs named Suburbs; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text
They come from the "Characteristics" section of the grey right-hand side bar at the top. Mayhbe someone can fix? Harel ( talk) 06:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Harel,
You initially added text to the article with the following edit summary: "Per agreement on Talk page, Tiamut's version(07:15, 15 February 2012) plus 4 refs;I removed AlJazeera ref, others seem sufficient"
When I pointed out to you that your inclusions did NOT reflect the agreement on the talk page, you added your preferred text back anyway with the edit summary, "Then please add those parts".
If you are going to implement a compromise, you need to implement the ENTIRE compromise, not just the parts that YOU like. Otherwise you are acting in bad faith, by claiming to be adhering to an agreement when you are, in fact, not and when you know you are not. GabrielF ( talk) 04:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
"Al-Qaeda's branch in Iraq likely carried out recent suicide bombings in Syria and has infiltrated opposition forces fighting President Bashar al-Assad's regime, the US spy chief said Thursday.
Bombing attacks in Damascus and Aleppo since December "had all the earmarks of an Al-Qaeda-like attack," James Clapper told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"And so we believe Al-Qaeda in Iraq is extending its reach into Syria," he said.
His comments confirmed earlier media reports that US officials suspected Al-Qaeda's hand in the bombings and follows a recent video message from Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in which he endorses the uprising against Assad's rule.
Clapper voiced concern that Al-Qaeda militants had inserted themselves inside a divided opposition amid the spiraling violence.
"Another disturbing phenomenon that we've seen recently, apparently, is the presence of extremists who have infiltrated the opposition groups.”
"The opposition groups in many cases may not be aware that they're there," said Clapper, director of national intelligence.
To read more: http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=365628#ixzz1mZcZoBI2 "
Response to your tedious never ending pursuit to try to get alqaeda included as an opposition member.
We already discussed this above. Also why are you trusting the US spy chief all of a sudden? You do realize that the USA intelligence confirms that the Syrian army is massacring civilians. If you believe what they say about al-qaeda, you better also believe what they say what the Syrian government does as well. Sopher99 ( talk) 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Also Nir rosen, who went on the ground himself, confirmed that alqaeda and extremists do not play any large role.
The Syrian government has spies within the Free Syrian army, does not mean we add government spies as part of the opposition group?
Libyan rebels aldso infiltrated the FSA, as did pershmega. What you are doing chronical ids a lame attempt to try vindicate the government's crackdown on civilians.
We already had this diccussion. The Answer is no. Alqaeda is not part of the opposition, Even if they fight alongside them. Sopher99 ( talk) 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Pershmega supports the rebels, Hamas supports the rebels. Hezbollah supports the Syrian government. iran supports the Syrian government. If we put Alqaeda, we put in Iran and Hezbollah, and Pershmega.
To quote ElsworthSK from the previous discussion
“fact that there are salafists in Syria means nothing. They are also in France. Doesnt make them AQ members now, does it. Salafi are religious group, not an militia network under command of Zawahri. Thirdly - misintepreting original article, or even lack of reading it seems to be common here. Yes, we have report from reliable source. That one quotes suspistion of unnamed US officials (what could be basiclly anyone in US beuroctatic army), it does not say wether they are from DoD, WH, MoD, army or otherwise. Worth adding to article, but using as proof of AQ beeing side of the conflict? Hardly. As far as I remember, official US stance is that there is no concrete proof of AQ involvement. And lastly - Zawahri statement. Where exactly did Zawahri said that there are AQ operatives in Syria? Because I missed that part. Al Queda was supporting revolution in Egypt, in Libya and in Yemen. In one of these countries group linked to them has taken control over capital of Aden district. However when I look into Yemeni uprising page I dont see AQAP as part of the conflict. And good that you started with Hizbollah and IRGC discussion, number of reliable sources talking about their involvement is uncountable and its pretty obvious that HA and Iranian government deny this, AQ never said that they are operating in Syria either. So it´s seems little hypocritical from ChronicalUsual to write was he has written in this context.
if you didnt notice, al Queda isnt exactly open for inquiries and interviews and is not state-running organization like Hezbollah. Zawahri is not answering questions and Zawahri never, ever said that AQ operatives went to Syria, nor we do have any evidence to make such claim, nor do reliable sources claim so. If you state otherwise source it. As for Iraq, they are Iranian ally in the first place and bytheway he says nothing about AQ but claims that according to his sources Syrian fighters which fought in Iraq are returning to Syria."
United States intelligence officials told The Washington Post that while the bombings in Syria have the hallmarks of al-Qaeda operations, they have found no conclusive link to al-Qaeda or its Iraqi affiliate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/top-general-assassinated-in-damascus/2012/02/11/gIQAfYPn6Q_story.html
Sopher99 ( talk) 19:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The thing is that you, and some other editors have been trying to sugarcoat the reality about the opposition to the syrian governement. Al Qaeda and islamists are there, they openly supports the rebellion and fight alongside them on the ground. They are not part of the SNC or FSA, but they are another group of armed insurgents. -- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 19:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
What opposition? The opposition you talk about is not an unified thing, there is more than 20 different organization and the FSA itself is virtually a franchise name for a lot of different armed groups. There is no "syrian opposition" as a whole. And it's because the FSA rejects them that we have to mention the djihadists as another group against Syrian governement. -- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 19:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Response to your tedious never ending pursuit to try to get alqaeda included as an opposition member.
We already discussed this above. Also why are you trusting the US spy chief all of a sudden? You do realize that the USA intelligence confirms that the Syrian army is massacring civilians. If you believe what they say about al-qaeda, you better also believe what they say what the Syrian government does as well. Sopher99 ( talk) 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2012/02/06/Syrias-Assad-frees-al-Qaida-strategist/UPI-89631328564646/ Assad intentionally release leading alqaeda figue. Assad is on the side of alqaeda.
We already discussed this above. Also why are you trusting the US spy chief all of a sudden? You do realize that the USA intelligence confirms that the Syrian army is massacring civilians. If you believe what they say about al-qaeda, you better also believe what they say what the Syrian government does as well.
Sopher99 ( talk) 20:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Your attempts at wanting to hide the truth are desperate. Between Zawahiri, Iraki minister reports and USA official spy chief, which sides with the syrian rebels, we don't even need to mention the governement accusations on the opposition fighters. But you still fight the evidence with as much energy. That shows a lot of dedication.... and activism. --
ChronicalUsual (
talk) 20:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
No chronical. Zawahiri also supported the libyan rebels in a video statement. Alqaeda was not involved in Libya. Iraq is an ally of Iran, and the opposiiton fighter agree to fight alqaeda, meaning they are a third bar.
Once more
Nothing has been confirmed
Once more
hezbollah and iran are also hgihly accused of participating.
I am not an activist, i am just tired of your pathetic attempts to derail wikiepdia. Sopher99 ( talk) 20:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
How about we put it to a vote?
Sopher99 (
talk) 20:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree for a vote, even if I know that there are several activists here, most notably Kuzdu. -- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 20:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The article is again way too long -- twice the size of the suggested max. If someone would like to address that (with spin-off articles and sprucing), that would be great.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 09:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
We need a spin off for the military side but some cry babies like Kuzdu and some other are pressuring admins to keep the article like that. -- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 19:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I brought down the article to 175k, by eliminating the peace proposal, international, and refugee section in favor for suggestions to the readers to read the articles specifically about. Sopher99 ( talk) 21:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
@Sopher, can you please clarify what is your reason for blanking several of the sections in the article (refugees, sectarianism etc.)? Just because there is an expansion article doesn't mean you should completely delete summary info on the main page! It damages the encyclopedic quality of the article. Greyshark09 ( talk) 21:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The intro is heavily biased towards the intro. It goes into minutiae of too many claims that can only be traced to the "Syrian Observatory of Human Rights" (and people complain about article size?), and treat them as fact. Also, it leaves out any mention of sectarian motives, direct foreign backing of the opposition (Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia), and leaves out any mention of the well-established importance of Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda in the uprising. It should also be mentioned that the Syrian government has the support of pretty much all the world, apart from Western Europe and a bunch of fellow dictatorships in the Arab world. The controversy over facts should also be mentioned in the intro. FunkMonk ( talk) 16:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Response
I totally disagree. The intro actually has a big paragraph about the FSA, but we had to take it out to conserve space.
1 - The opposition armed elements belong on a military page, not the intro.
2 - The LCC, Syrian general revolution commission, Amnesty international, Arab League, UN, Human rights watch, and avaaz, all play a big role in claiming the civilians deaths. not just the SOHR>
4 - We already include the government's claim that armed gangs and "terrorists" are responsible.
5- The uprising entirely centers around the Syrian governments killing of protesters and subsequent rebellion. The Syrian governments claims are conventionally. considered ludicrous and unreliable.
6- The Syrian govement does not have support of the entire world, infact 120/140 nations who voted in the UN general assembly voted Against the Syrian government. Europe and America is alot less than 120 Nations. Another 10 Abstained, meaning no opinion.
I understand you are sad that bashar assad may fall, but does not call for skewing thew lead if tripe of foreign conspiracy claims. Sopher99 ( talk) 18:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I read this in the intro, "Al-Qaeda has voiced support for the uprising, and its Iraqi branch is believed to be operating against the regime." ... I think that needs a source ASAP or else it needs to be taken down. Usually such groups flaunt about their accomplishments and involvements, so finding them shouldn't be hard, if not it should be taken down. There are also two statements in that one sentence, 1) Al-Qaeda supports the uprising, 2) Iraqi branch is operating in Syria ... sources for both are needed! 207.112.63.146 ( talk) 21:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:2011-12-19 SNC Members at first congress in Tunis (iPhone).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:2011-12-19 SNC Members at first congress in Tunis (iPhone).jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 05:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC) |
Hi ... Supreme State Security Court is in the infobox, twice. Uncited. I had redlinked its first appearance, thinking I myself perhaps or perhaps someone else would at some point write an article on it. Someone deleted the redlink.
My questions are: a) does it belong in the ibox?, b) if so, should it be in the body as well (it is not reflected in the body)?, and c) if it is reflected in the article, does anyone object to it being redlinked?-- Epeefleche ( talk) 08:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
We should really not put claims like this into the article unless we have solid confirmation: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/defected-syria-general-vows-return-fight.aspx?pageID=238&nID=14223&NewsCatID=338 A Turkish (partisan) newspaper quotes an FSA (partisan) source for a ridiculous claim. FunkMonk ( talk) 01:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a difference between the Ba'ath Party (dissolved in 1966), the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Syria Region (a regional cell) and the Ba'ath Party (Syrian-led faction) (a transnational organisation). Stop mixing these things... -- TIAYN ( talk) 15:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
"The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should normally be no more than four paragraphs." [9] Our lead is currently 7 paragraphs long. Someone might be interested in combining paras and/or trimming. Tx.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 06:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I have reduced the lead by throwing out unnecessary details that belong elsewhere in the article. But it still need to be reduced a little.-- FavorLaw ( talk) 11:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The last three paragraphs would be removed - the "concessions" do not play a big role, especially because they mean nothing and that this is a quasi war. The last two paragraphs which talk about international stuff can be removed, as we talk about that at length in the sections below. Sopher99 ( talk) 13:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Some opposition supporters editors are opposed to reduce the lead, it seems. -- FavorLaw ( talk) 13:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
No we are opposed to reducing th lead the in the manner you brought forth, especially after we established a talk page on such. Sopher99 ( talk) 13:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
You are again violating wikipedia rules by reverting edits without any justification. You already failed with your abuse of speedy deletion on another page where you broke as well the rules of moving a page, and where you started to remove sourced contents after all your attempts failed miserably. I fear that you do not see Wikipedia as an encyclopedia that needs improvement, but as a tool to advance your opinion on a given event. -- FavorLaw ( talk) 14:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Its the total opposite. You intentionally removed all the information about civilian deaths and sieges and left only the sectarian, concession, and free syrian army component, even though we were not done with his talk on this talk page. Sopher99 ( talk) 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The 2011–2012 Syrian uprising is an ongoing internal conflict in Syria. It is a part of the wider Arab Spring which began in December 2010, a wave of social upheaval throughout the Arab World demanding greater political freedom and an end to autocracy. Public demonstrations began on 26 January 2011, and developed into a nationwide uprising. Protesters demanded the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, the overthrow of the government, and an end to nearly five decades of Ba’ath party rule.
The Syrian government deployed the Syrian Army to quell the uprising, and several cities were besieged. [1] [2] [3] According to witnesses, soldiers who refused to open fire on civilians were summarily executed by the Syrian Army. [4] [5] [6] The Syrian government denied reports of defections, and blamed "armed gangs" for causing trouble. [7] Beginning in Summer 2011, civilians and army defectors formed fighting units, which began an insurgency campaign against the Syrian regular army. Violent clashes took place across the country, increasing by the end of 2011, and the insurgents unified under the banner of the Free Syrian Army and fought in an increasingly organized fashion.
The uprising has sectarian undertones, as the opposition is dominated by Sunni Muslims, whereas the regime is dominated by Alawite Muslims. [8] Bashar al-Assad is supported by segments of the Syrian population, including minorities such as Alawites and many Christians, and elements of the Sunni upper and middle classes. [9] The Kurdish minority is split; some support the uprising and others are neutral. The Syrian opposition denies that sectarianism plays a significant role in the uprising.
Verification of death-tolls and specific events have been hard to verify due to the Syrian government putting restrictions on foreign journalists. According to the UN and other sources, since the beginning of the uprising, up to 8,000 people, including 1,900–2,900 armed combatants, have been killed in total, [10] [11] [12] [13] many more injured, and tens of thousands of protesters have been imprisoned. Over 400 children have been killed as well. [14] [15] Another 400 children have been reportedly arrested and tortured in Syrian prisons. [16] Additionally, over 600 detainees and political prisoners have died under torture. [17]
The Arab League, the USA, the EU states, the GCC states and other regional countries have condemned the use of violence against the protesters. However, military intervention has been generally ruled out by foreign powers. [18] The Free Syrian Army and other local opposition forces are believed to be aided by Al-Qaeda's Iraqi branch. The Arab League suspended Syria's membership over the government's response to the crisis [19] but sent an observing mission as part of its proposal for peaceful resolution for the Syrian crisis.
New proposed lede with considerations on advice given by Darouet
The 2011–2012 Syrian uprising is an ongoing internal conflict in Syria. It is a part of the wider Arab Spring which began in December 2010, a wave of social upheaval throughout the Arab World demanding greater political freedom and an end to autocracy. Public demonstrations began on 26 January 2011, and developed into a nationwide uprising. Protesters demanded the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, the overthrow of the government, and an end to nearly five decades of Ba’ath party rule.
The Syrian government deployed the Syrian Army to quell the uprising, and several cities were besieged. [1] [2] [3] According to witnesses, soldiers who refused to open fire on civilians were summarily executed by the Syrian Army. [4] [20] The Syrian government denied reports of defections, and blamed "armed gangs" for causing trouble. [7] Beginning in Summer 2011, civilians and army defectors formed fighting units, which began an insurgency campaign against the Syrian regular army. Violent clashes took place across the country, increasing by the end of 2011, and the insurgents unified under the banner of the Free Syrian Army and fought in an increasingly organized fashion. However, the civilian component of the opposition fighters do not have an organized leadership.
The uprising has sectarian undertones, as the opposition is dominated by Sunni Muslims, whereas the regime is dominated by Alawite Muslims. [21] Bashar al-Assad is supported by segments of the Syrian population, including minorities such as Alawites and many Christians, and elements of the Sunni upper and middle classes. [22] The Kurdish minority is split; some support the uprising and others are neutral. The Syrian opposition denies that sectarianism plays a significant role in the uprising.
According to the UN and other sources, since the beginning of the uprising, up to 9,000 people, primarily protesters, along with 1,900–2,900 armed combatants, have been killed in total. [10] [11] [23] [24]. Many more have been injured, and tens of thousands of protesters have been imprisoned. Over 400 children have been killed as well. [25] [26] Another 400 children have been reportedly arrested and tortured in Syrian prisons. [27] Additionally, over 600 detainees and political prisoners have died under torture. [28]
The Arab League, the USA, the EU states, the GCC states and other regional countries have condemned the use of violence against the protesters. China and Russia has expressed reservation in condemning the regime or applying sanctions and embargoes, believing that such methods could escalate into foreign intervention. However, military intervention has been generally ruled out by foreign powers. [29] The Free Syrian Army and other local opposition forces are believed to be aided by Al-Qaeda's Iraqi branch. The Arab League suspended Syria's membership over the government's response to the crisis [19] but sent an observing mission as part of its proposal for peaceful resolution for the Syrian crisis.
Whatever is done to the lede -- and it can be a combination of pruning, editing, and paragraph-combining -- I think it would be good to bring it to 4 paras.
Also, I think it would be good to strip out (and, if appropriate, embed in the text below) all the footnotes in the lede that don't support any highly controversial statements. It is enough per our policy for the refs to be in the text below, as the lede is summary of that text. And here, IMHO, the heavy use of footnotes in the lede is part of what makes it difficult to read.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
New lede with regard to suggestions by User:Epeefleche
The 2011–2012 Syrian uprising is an ongoing internal conflict in Syria. It is a part of the wider Arab Spring which began in December 2010, a wave of social upheaval throughout the Arab World demanding greater political freedom and an end to autocracy. Public demonstrations began on 26 January 2011, and developed into a nationwide uprising. Protesters demanded the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, the overthrow of the government, and an end to nearly five decades of Ba’ath party rule.
The Syrian government deployed the Syrian Army to quell the uprising, and several cities were besieged. [30] [3] According to witnesses, soldiers who refused to open fire on civilians were summarily executed by the Syrian Army. [4] The Syrian government denied reports of defections, and blamed "armed gangs" for causing trouble. [7] In late 2011, civilians and army defectors formed fighting units, which began an insurgency campaign against the Syrian regular army. The insurgents unified under the banner of the Free Syrian Army and fought in an increasingly organized fashion. However, the civilian component of the opposition fighters do not have an organized leadership. The uprising has sectarian undertones, as the opposition is dominated by Sunni Muslims, whereas the regime is dominated by Alawite Muslims. [31] The Syrian opposition denies that sectarianism plays a significant role in the uprising, and the Syrian government has yet to mention sectarianism.
According to the UN and other sources, since the beginning of the uprising, up to 9,000 people, primarily protesters, along with 1,900–2,900 armed combatants, have been killed in total. [10] [11] [32] [33]. Many more have been injured, and tens of thousands of protesters have been imprisoned. Over 400 children have been killed as well. [34] [35] Another 400 children have been reportedly arrested and tortured in Syrian prisons. [36] Additionally, over 600 detainees and political prisoners have died under torture. [37]
The Arab League, the USA, the EU states, the GCC states and other regional countries have condemned the use of violence against the protesters. China and Russia has expressed reservation in condemning the regime or applying sanctions and embargoes, believing that such methods could escalate into foreign intervention. However, military intervention has been generally ruled out by foreign powers. [38] The Free Syrian Army and other local opposition forces are believed to be aided by Al-Qaeda's Iraqi branch. The Arab League suspended Syria's membership over the government's response to the crisis [19] but sent an observing mission as part of its proposal for peaceful resolution for the Syrian crisis.
Sopher99 (
talk) 22:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Result
The consensus shows that my latest lede is best. I will take FunkMonk's suggestion to re-add minority support for Bashar Assad as well. Sopher99 ( talk) 04:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
probeslams
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).23dead
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).nyt-suspended
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
"27. In Homs, Idlib and Hama, the Observer Mission witnessed acts of violence being committed against Government forces and civilians that resulted in several deaths and injuries. Examples of those acts include the bombing of a civilian bus, killing eight persons and injuring others, including women and children, and the bombing of a train carrying diesel oil. In another incident in Homs, a police bus was blown up, killing two police officers. A fuel pipeline and some small bridges were also bombed. 28. The Mission noted that many parties falsely reported that explosions or violence had occurred in several locations. When the observers went to those locations, they found that those reports were unfounded. 29. The Mission also noted that, according to its teams in the field, the media exaggerated the nature of the incidents and the number of persons killed in incidents and protests in certain towns."
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Report_of_Arab_League_Observer_Mission.pdf 58.210.98.134 ( talk) 16:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The reason why we don't include it is because there are so many parts that report that can be used for and against, it just turns into a flame war. Consequently we don't use firts hand sources like that. This has already been discussed. Sopher99 ( talk) 16:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
For example, why don't we include this?
74. In some cities, the Mission sensed the extreme tension, oppression and injustice from which the Syrian people are suffering. However, the citizens believe the crisis should be resolved peacefully through Arab mediation alone, without international intervention. Doing so would allow them to live in peace and complete the reform process and bring about the change they desire. The Mission was informed by the opposition, particularly in Dar‘a, Homs, Hama and Idlib, that some of its members had taken up arms in response to the suffering of the Syrian people as a result of the regime’s oppression and tyranny; corruption, which affects all sectors of society; the use of torture by the security agencies; and human rights violations.
Further more the report has been criticized by arab governments themselves as not being serious or truthful. Sopher99 ( talk) 16:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
ChronicalUsual ( talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The article only has so much room. Can we please make a separate page already regarding the arab league report? Jordan Tunisia Morocco Libya also criticized the mission. Sopher99 ( talk) 16:23, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Can we agree to make a separate article entirely compromising of the Arab League report? Sopher99 ( talk) 16:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Have any news sources started to call the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising a civil war? 70.179.36.58 ( talk) 04:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Time Magazine has. --♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I7laseral, Multiple scholarly references have been given which you seem to not have read or not care about, referring to "no evidence". That is evidence: multiple respected scholars. I'm now adding a fourth refernece and will add more maybe, but you need to stop the policy-violating deletions/undos.
"It does matter if the professor mentioned it in his book, no evidence what so-ever. No witnesses to this, no leaks, no admission, and even the Syrian government does not accuse)"
1. I assume you meant "it does NOT matter if.."
2. "no leaks, no admission" Did you not read my previous Edit Comments? Former CIA agent Wilbur Eveland not only admitted it but said why the coup was carried out ("in order to obtain Syrian government ratification of TAPLINE")
3. "even the Syrian governmetn does not accuse"?
This is not particularly helpful or relevant; secondly, how do you know, unless you carried out a full serach of all statements by the Syrian government? Thirdly, which government? There have been many since 1949. Have you searched for records of government statements by *all* previous Syrian governments since 1949? I very much doubt it. In any case, it does not tell us very much whether (in *public*) the Syrian government (this one or previous) talks about this 1949 event.
4. "No witnesses to this"
If China used covert operatives to act against another country, would you or any one of us consider "no witnesses" to be a reason to say something didn't happen? Of course not.
This is the inherent U.S.-centric bias all of us must guard against: we cannot have one reasonable level of evidence "if China did it" like citing three scholars, but then turn around and have a completely different, far higher standard of evidence "if the U.S. did it"
Maybe the idea of a CIA operation is shocking, because they don't teach us in school about the 1954 overthrow of Guatemala's democratically elected president Arbentz Guzman (I see we do have 1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'état) or the CIA's involvement in the 1953 overthrow of the democratically elected Mosaddegh in Iran (see 4th paragraph of Mohammad_Mosaddegh). Perhaps you should read up on this background, and you'd be less shocked at this 1949 CIA coup. We Americans should find be embrrassing that we know so little of the history of our own government. As for the CIA supported coup in Syria, I am ashamed to say I did not know about it until relatively recently. But once we know, there is no excuse for bias on Wikipedia to protect from posting something embarrassing to Washington.
There are now provided three full references. This is more solid documentation than for most other things stated in this article. Maybe "more solid" is appropriate given the nature of this event, but then very well, this "more solid" level has now been achieved:
1. Joseph Massad, professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University. Published in Nov. 2011.
2. Article by Douglas Little, Professor, Depart-ment of History, Clark University, citing also declassified records. Article from May 2003.
(2.5) There is also a 1990 article by Prof. Little, in Middle East Journal, Vol 44 No 1, Winter 1990, "Cold War and Covert Action: The United States and Syria, 1945-1958" see http://www.jstor.org/pss/4328056 but only the first page is visible. Could still add as additional reference.
3. Now also a scholarly work by Irene Gendzier ( http://www.bu.edu/polisci/people/faculty/gendzier/ ) professor of Political Science at Boston University, in her book published by columbia University Press in 1997.
Specific page, p. 98 is given, and is even viewable on books.google.com. There is additional information on the coup on other pages. Additionally as noted, former CIA agent Wilbur Eveland not only admitted it but said why the coup was carried out (in order to obtain Syrian government ratification of TAPLINE)
I can easily find another one, but don't want to over-do the references right now.
If you were not aware of the wealth of evidence, that is understandable, neither was I not that long ago.
nWhat is not ok however, is to have one reasonable level of evidence "if Chi a did it" like citing three scholars, but then turn around and have a completely different, far higher standard of evidence "if the U.S. did it"
What is not ok is for you to keep deleting *very* well multiple-scholar referenced facts like the CIA's role in the 1949 coup, and to just repeat "no evidence what-so-ever" over and over again, despite the copious amounts of evidence as just cited in journal articles (2.5), books and articles by prestigious well known universities, just because you don't like the facts: THAT IS VIOLATING WIKIPEDIA POLICIES. PLEASE STOP THESE DELETIONS (but I will add reference (2.5) and maybe another, just food good measure. Happy?) Harel ( talk) 04:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Please
It doesn't matter if a dozen scholars write in their article how they believe there were cia agents involved
Everyday, dozens of "scholars" and "reporters" write about how the USA is part of the illuminati, responsible for 911, is plotting a NWO, and worships Baphomet. Doesn't mean its credible.
You have no evidence, just a dozen people saying "the cia definitely did it". I can find 1000 scholars/historian/pundits right now who would say the USA was behind 911, does not mean we make note of it every time we mentioned 911.
I7laseral ( talk) 04:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
"""In fact, you cannot find 100 articles in peer-reviewed well-know established journals that "Bush ordered 9/11 attacks" or other such claims. You can find self-appointed scholars for anything.
The text about the CIA's involvement in the 1949 coup strikes me as defensive editing - dumping a list of sources into the text of an article in order to solidify the grounds for including some text. The result is that the list of sources is digressive and irrelevant to the casual reader. I skimmed the Douglas Little article on JSTOR and I agree that there is sufficient sourcing to indicate that there was some CIA involvement in the 1949 coup - or at least to support text that says some historians say there was such involvement. However, I'm not clear why a discussion of CIA involvement in 1949 is relevant. Is someone trying to insinuate something about American intervention around the world? Because this isn't the place for that. (Nor is it clear to me that a coup wouldn't have taken place without CIA involvement, given the whole series of coups that occurred in the years following the Israeli victory in 1948 - many of which - take Nasser for instance - had nothing to do with the CIA) What relevance does the CIA's involvement in the 1949 coup have to THIS article? GabrielF ( talk) 05:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Ga
Agreed, we might as well put in the history of the Assyrians while we are at it, additionally, that paragraph looked to be written as if it was trying to prove point. Sopher99 ( talk) 12:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand this debate as well. Wether the CIA was involved or not has very little to do with this article.-- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 16:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
We are not talking about the reliability, we are talking about the necessity of the subject itself. If you want to talk about the reliability of the sources engage in the discussion above this one. Sopher99 ( talk) 19:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
(indent) I agree that information about the 1949 coup is certainly relevant, but to state as a fact that it was the point where democracy was overturned is a bit too much. Especially that there is a divergence of opinion on the matter. Moubayed feels that the point where democracy was overturned (effectively and for good) came actually with the UAR, because it was the point when the parliamentary system in Syria was replaced with a highly-centralized presidential regime (akin to what we'll witness later under Baath). Add to that that the years between Shishakli's downfall (to a popular uprising, in part) in 1954, and 1958 were relatively democratic years that saw the only peaceful (and normal) transition of power in Syria's history from a sitting president to an elected one (Atassi to Quwatli). Just something to keep in mind. Yazan ( talk) 20:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I support Tiamut's revised paragraph. Sopher99 ( talk) 21:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help). Khadduri discusses how the Quwatli regime was regarded as corrupt and oligarchic and that al-Zaim, who came to power in the first coup, ordered elections with universal suffrage (including women). Harel seems to be making an argument above that there was democracy, then there was a CIA-sponsored coup and then there was never democracy again. Hence his discussion of how the CIA "is nothing less than of the key players on the planet today", etc. I appreciate that Tiamut and Yazan are approaching this with a more appropriate degree of nuance.
GabrielF (
talk) 23:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
While fixing minor formatting of reference I've added, I found these much earlier (in article) refs:
^ Cite error: Invalid < ref > tag; no text was provided for refs named Saqba; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text ^ Cite error: Invalid < ref > tag; no text was provided for refs named Suburbs; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text
They come from the "Characteristics" section of the grey right-hand side bar at the top. Mayhbe someone can fix? Harel ( talk) 06:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Harel,
You initially added text to the article with the following edit summary: "Per agreement on Talk page, Tiamut's version(07:15, 15 February 2012) plus 4 refs;I removed AlJazeera ref, others seem sufficient"
When I pointed out to you that your inclusions did NOT reflect the agreement on the talk page, you added your preferred text back anyway with the edit summary, "Then please add those parts".
If you are going to implement a compromise, you need to implement the ENTIRE compromise, not just the parts that YOU like. Otherwise you are acting in bad faith, by claiming to be adhering to an agreement when you are, in fact, not and when you know you are not. GabrielF ( talk) 04:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
"Al-Qaeda's branch in Iraq likely carried out recent suicide bombings in Syria and has infiltrated opposition forces fighting President Bashar al-Assad's regime, the US spy chief said Thursday.
Bombing attacks in Damascus and Aleppo since December "had all the earmarks of an Al-Qaeda-like attack," James Clapper told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"And so we believe Al-Qaeda in Iraq is extending its reach into Syria," he said.
His comments confirmed earlier media reports that US officials suspected Al-Qaeda's hand in the bombings and follows a recent video message from Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri in which he endorses the uprising against Assad's rule.
Clapper voiced concern that Al-Qaeda militants had inserted themselves inside a divided opposition amid the spiraling violence.
"Another disturbing phenomenon that we've seen recently, apparently, is the presence of extremists who have infiltrated the opposition groups.”
"The opposition groups in many cases may not be aware that they're there," said Clapper, director of national intelligence.
To read more: http://www.nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=365628#ixzz1mZcZoBI2 "
Response to your tedious never ending pursuit to try to get alqaeda included as an opposition member.
We already discussed this above. Also why are you trusting the US spy chief all of a sudden? You do realize that the USA intelligence confirms that the Syrian army is massacring civilians. If you believe what they say about al-qaeda, you better also believe what they say what the Syrian government does as well. Sopher99 ( talk) 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Also Nir rosen, who went on the ground himself, confirmed that alqaeda and extremists do not play any large role.
The Syrian government has spies within the Free Syrian army, does not mean we add government spies as part of the opposition group?
Libyan rebels aldso infiltrated the FSA, as did pershmega. What you are doing chronical ids a lame attempt to try vindicate the government's crackdown on civilians.
We already had this diccussion. The Answer is no. Alqaeda is not part of the opposition, Even if they fight alongside them. Sopher99 ( talk) 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Pershmega supports the rebels, Hamas supports the rebels. Hezbollah supports the Syrian government. iran supports the Syrian government. If we put Alqaeda, we put in Iran and Hezbollah, and Pershmega.
To quote ElsworthSK from the previous discussion
“fact that there are salafists in Syria means nothing. They are also in France. Doesnt make them AQ members now, does it. Salafi are religious group, not an militia network under command of Zawahri. Thirdly - misintepreting original article, or even lack of reading it seems to be common here. Yes, we have report from reliable source. That one quotes suspistion of unnamed US officials (what could be basiclly anyone in US beuroctatic army), it does not say wether they are from DoD, WH, MoD, army or otherwise. Worth adding to article, but using as proof of AQ beeing side of the conflict? Hardly. As far as I remember, official US stance is that there is no concrete proof of AQ involvement. And lastly - Zawahri statement. Where exactly did Zawahri said that there are AQ operatives in Syria? Because I missed that part. Al Queda was supporting revolution in Egypt, in Libya and in Yemen. In one of these countries group linked to them has taken control over capital of Aden district. However when I look into Yemeni uprising page I dont see AQAP as part of the conflict. And good that you started with Hizbollah and IRGC discussion, number of reliable sources talking about their involvement is uncountable and its pretty obvious that HA and Iranian government deny this, AQ never said that they are operating in Syria either. So it´s seems little hypocritical from ChronicalUsual to write was he has written in this context.
if you didnt notice, al Queda isnt exactly open for inquiries and interviews and is not state-running organization like Hezbollah. Zawahri is not answering questions and Zawahri never, ever said that AQ operatives went to Syria, nor we do have any evidence to make such claim, nor do reliable sources claim so. If you state otherwise source it. As for Iraq, they are Iranian ally in the first place and bytheway he says nothing about AQ but claims that according to his sources Syrian fighters which fought in Iraq are returning to Syria."
United States intelligence officials told The Washington Post that while the bombings in Syria have the hallmarks of al-Qaeda operations, they have found no conclusive link to al-Qaeda or its Iraqi affiliate. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/top-general-assassinated-in-damascus/2012/02/11/gIQAfYPn6Q_story.html
Sopher99 ( talk) 19:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The thing is that you, and some other editors have been trying to sugarcoat the reality about the opposition to the syrian governement. Al Qaeda and islamists are there, they openly supports the rebellion and fight alongside them on the ground. They are not part of the SNC or FSA, but they are another group of armed insurgents. -- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 19:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
What opposition? The opposition you talk about is not an unified thing, there is more than 20 different organization and the FSA itself is virtually a franchise name for a lot of different armed groups. There is no "syrian opposition" as a whole. And it's because the FSA rejects them that we have to mention the djihadists as another group against Syrian governement. -- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 19:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Response to your tedious never ending pursuit to try to get alqaeda included as an opposition member.
We already discussed this above. Also why are you trusting the US spy chief all of a sudden? You do realize that the USA intelligence confirms that the Syrian army is massacring civilians. If you believe what they say about al-qaeda, you better also believe what they say what the Syrian government does as well. Sopher99 ( talk) 19:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2012/02/06/Syrias-Assad-frees-al-Qaida-strategist/UPI-89631328564646/ Assad intentionally release leading alqaeda figue. Assad is on the side of alqaeda.
We already discussed this above. Also why are you trusting the US spy chief all of a sudden? You do realize that the USA intelligence confirms that the Syrian army is massacring civilians. If you believe what they say about al-qaeda, you better also believe what they say what the Syrian government does as well.
Sopher99 ( talk) 20:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Your attempts at wanting to hide the truth are desperate. Between Zawahiri, Iraki minister reports and USA official spy chief, which sides with the syrian rebels, we don't even need to mention the governement accusations on the opposition fighters. But you still fight the evidence with as much energy. That shows a lot of dedication.... and activism. --
ChronicalUsual (
talk) 20:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
No chronical. Zawahiri also supported the libyan rebels in a video statement. Alqaeda was not involved in Libya. Iraq is an ally of Iran, and the opposiiton fighter agree to fight alqaeda, meaning they are a third bar.
Once more
Nothing has been confirmed
Once more
hezbollah and iran are also hgihly accused of participating.
I am not an activist, i am just tired of your pathetic attempts to derail wikiepdia. Sopher99 ( talk) 20:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
How about we put it to a vote?
Sopher99 (
talk) 20:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree for a vote, even if I know that there are several activists here, most notably Kuzdu. -- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 20:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The article is again way too long -- twice the size of the suggested max. If someone would like to address that (with spin-off articles and sprucing), that would be great.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 09:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
We need a spin off for the military side but some cry babies like Kuzdu and some other are pressuring admins to keep the article like that. -- ChronicalUsual ( talk) 19:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I brought down the article to 175k, by eliminating the peace proposal, international, and refugee section in favor for suggestions to the readers to read the articles specifically about. Sopher99 ( talk) 21:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
@Sopher, can you please clarify what is your reason for blanking several of the sections in the article (refugees, sectarianism etc.)? Just because there is an expansion article doesn't mean you should completely delete summary info on the main page! It damages the encyclopedic quality of the article. Greyshark09 ( talk) 21:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The intro is heavily biased towards the intro. It goes into minutiae of too many claims that can only be traced to the "Syrian Observatory of Human Rights" (and people complain about article size?), and treat them as fact. Also, it leaves out any mention of sectarian motives, direct foreign backing of the opposition (Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia), and leaves out any mention of the well-established importance of Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda in the uprising. It should also be mentioned that the Syrian government has the support of pretty much all the world, apart from Western Europe and a bunch of fellow dictatorships in the Arab world. The controversy over facts should also be mentioned in the intro. FunkMonk ( talk) 16:47, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Response
I totally disagree. The intro actually has a big paragraph about the FSA, but we had to take it out to conserve space.
1 - The opposition armed elements belong on a military page, not the intro.
2 - The LCC, Syrian general revolution commission, Amnesty international, Arab League, UN, Human rights watch, and avaaz, all play a big role in claiming the civilians deaths. not just the SOHR>
4 - We already include the government's claim that armed gangs and "terrorists" are responsible.
5- The uprising entirely centers around the Syrian governments killing of protesters and subsequent rebellion. The Syrian governments claims are conventionally. considered ludicrous and unreliable.
6- The Syrian govement does not have support of the entire world, infact 120/140 nations who voted in the UN general assembly voted Against the Syrian government. Europe and America is alot less than 120 Nations. Another 10 Abstained, meaning no opinion.
I understand you are sad that bashar assad may fall, but does not call for skewing thew lead if tripe of foreign conspiracy claims. Sopher99 ( talk) 18:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I read this in the intro, "Al-Qaeda has voiced support for the uprising, and its Iraqi branch is believed to be operating against the regime." ... I think that needs a source ASAP or else it needs to be taken down. Usually such groups flaunt about their accomplishments and involvements, so finding them shouldn't be hard, if not it should be taken down. There are also two statements in that one sentence, 1) Al-Qaeda supports the uprising, 2) Iraqi branch is operating in Syria ... sources for both are needed! 207.112.63.146 ( talk) 21:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:2011-12-19 SNC Members at first congress in Tunis (iPhone).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:2011-12-19 SNC Members at first congress in Tunis (iPhone).jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 05:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC) |
Hi ... Supreme State Security Court is in the infobox, twice. Uncited. I had redlinked its first appearance, thinking I myself perhaps or perhaps someone else would at some point write an article on it. Someone deleted the redlink.
My questions are: a) does it belong in the ibox?, b) if so, should it be in the body as well (it is not reflected in the body)?, and c) if it is reflected in the article, does anyone object to it being redlinked?-- Epeefleche ( talk) 08:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
We should really not put claims like this into the article unless we have solid confirmation: http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/defected-syria-general-vows-return-fight.aspx?pageID=238&nID=14223&NewsCatID=338 A Turkish (partisan) newspaper quotes an FSA (partisan) source for a ridiculous claim. FunkMonk ( talk) 01:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a difference between the Ba'ath Party (dissolved in 1966), the Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Syria Region (a regional cell) and the Ba'ath Party (Syrian-led faction) (a transnational organisation). Stop mixing these things... -- TIAYN ( talk) 15:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
"The appropriate length of the lead depends on that of the article, but should normally be no more than four paragraphs." [9] Our lead is currently 7 paragraphs long. Someone might be interested in combining paras and/or trimming. Tx.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 06:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I have reduced the lead by throwing out unnecessary details that belong elsewhere in the article. But it still need to be reduced a little.-- FavorLaw ( talk) 11:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The last three paragraphs would be removed - the "concessions" do not play a big role, especially because they mean nothing and that this is a quasi war. The last two paragraphs which talk about international stuff can be removed, as we talk about that at length in the sections below. Sopher99 ( talk) 13:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Some opposition supporters editors are opposed to reduce the lead, it seems. -- FavorLaw ( talk) 13:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
No we are opposed to reducing th lead the in the manner you brought forth, especially after we established a talk page on such. Sopher99 ( talk) 13:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
You are again violating wikipedia rules by reverting edits without any justification. You already failed with your abuse of speedy deletion on another page where you broke as well the rules of moving a page, and where you started to remove sourced contents after all your attempts failed miserably. I fear that you do not see Wikipedia as an encyclopedia that needs improvement, but as a tool to advance your opinion on a given event. -- FavorLaw ( talk) 14:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Its the total opposite. You intentionally removed all the information about civilian deaths and sieges and left only the sectarian, concession, and free syrian army component, even though we were not done with his talk on this talk page. Sopher99 ( talk) 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The 2011–2012 Syrian uprising is an ongoing internal conflict in Syria. It is a part of the wider Arab Spring which began in December 2010, a wave of social upheaval throughout the Arab World demanding greater political freedom and an end to autocracy. Public demonstrations began on 26 January 2011, and developed into a nationwide uprising. Protesters demanded the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, the overthrow of the government, and an end to nearly five decades of Ba’ath party rule.
The Syrian government deployed the Syrian Army to quell the uprising, and several cities were besieged. [1] [2] [3] According to witnesses, soldiers who refused to open fire on civilians were summarily executed by the Syrian Army. [4] [5] [6] The Syrian government denied reports of defections, and blamed "armed gangs" for causing trouble. [7] Beginning in Summer 2011, civilians and army defectors formed fighting units, which began an insurgency campaign against the Syrian regular army. Violent clashes took place across the country, increasing by the end of 2011, and the insurgents unified under the banner of the Free Syrian Army and fought in an increasingly organized fashion.
The uprising has sectarian undertones, as the opposition is dominated by Sunni Muslims, whereas the regime is dominated by Alawite Muslims. [8] Bashar al-Assad is supported by segments of the Syrian population, including minorities such as Alawites and many Christians, and elements of the Sunni upper and middle classes. [9] The Kurdish minority is split; some support the uprising and others are neutral. The Syrian opposition denies that sectarianism plays a significant role in the uprising.
Verification of death-tolls and specific events have been hard to verify due to the Syrian government putting restrictions on foreign journalists. According to the UN and other sources, since the beginning of the uprising, up to 8,000 people, including 1,900–2,900 armed combatants, have been killed in total, [10] [11] [12] [13] many more injured, and tens of thousands of protesters have been imprisoned. Over 400 children have been killed as well. [14] [15] Another 400 children have been reportedly arrested and tortured in Syrian prisons. [16] Additionally, over 600 detainees and political prisoners have died under torture. [17]
The Arab League, the USA, the EU states, the GCC states and other regional countries have condemned the use of violence against the protesters. However, military intervention has been generally ruled out by foreign powers. [18] The Free Syrian Army and other local opposition forces are believed to be aided by Al-Qaeda's Iraqi branch. The Arab League suspended Syria's membership over the government's response to the crisis [19] but sent an observing mission as part of its proposal for peaceful resolution for the Syrian crisis.
New proposed lede with considerations on advice given by Darouet
The 2011–2012 Syrian uprising is an ongoing internal conflict in Syria. It is a part of the wider Arab Spring which began in December 2010, a wave of social upheaval throughout the Arab World demanding greater political freedom and an end to autocracy. Public demonstrations began on 26 January 2011, and developed into a nationwide uprising. Protesters demanded the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, the overthrow of the government, and an end to nearly five decades of Ba’ath party rule.
The Syrian government deployed the Syrian Army to quell the uprising, and several cities were besieged. [1] [2] [3] According to witnesses, soldiers who refused to open fire on civilians were summarily executed by the Syrian Army. [4] [20] The Syrian government denied reports of defections, and blamed "armed gangs" for causing trouble. [7] Beginning in Summer 2011, civilians and army defectors formed fighting units, which began an insurgency campaign against the Syrian regular army. Violent clashes took place across the country, increasing by the end of 2011, and the insurgents unified under the banner of the Free Syrian Army and fought in an increasingly organized fashion. However, the civilian component of the opposition fighters do not have an organized leadership.
The uprising has sectarian undertones, as the opposition is dominated by Sunni Muslims, whereas the regime is dominated by Alawite Muslims. [21] Bashar al-Assad is supported by segments of the Syrian population, including minorities such as Alawites and many Christians, and elements of the Sunni upper and middle classes. [22] The Kurdish minority is split; some support the uprising and others are neutral. The Syrian opposition denies that sectarianism plays a significant role in the uprising.
According to the UN and other sources, since the beginning of the uprising, up to 9,000 people, primarily protesters, along with 1,900–2,900 armed combatants, have been killed in total. [10] [11] [23] [24]. Many more have been injured, and tens of thousands of protesters have been imprisoned. Over 400 children have been killed as well. [25] [26] Another 400 children have been reportedly arrested and tortured in Syrian prisons. [27] Additionally, over 600 detainees and political prisoners have died under torture. [28]
The Arab League, the USA, the EU states, the GCC states and other regional countries have condemned the use of violence against the protesters. China and Russia has expressed reservation in condemning the regime or applying sanctions and embargoes, believing that such methods could escalate into foreign intervention. However, military intervention has been generally ruled out by foreign powers. [29] The Free Syrian Army and other local opposition forces are believed to be aided by Al-Qaeda's Iraqi branch. The Arab League suspended Syria's membership over the government's response to the crisis [19] but sent an observing mission as part of its proposal for peaceful resolution for the Syrian crisis.
Whatever is done to the lede -- and it can be a combination of pruning, editing, and paragraph-combining -- I think it would be good to bring it to 4 paras.
Also, I think it would be good to strip out (and, if appropriate, embed in the text below) all the footnotes in the lede that don't support any highly controversial statements. It is enough per our policy for the refs to be in the text below, as the lede is summary of that text. And here, IMHO, the heavy use of footnotes in the lede is part of what makes it difficult to read.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 21:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
New lede with regard to suggestions by User:Epeefleche
The 2011–2012 Syrian uprising is an ongoing internal conflict in Syria. It is a part of the wider Arab Spring which began in December 2010, a wave of social upheaval throughout the Arab World demanding greater political freedom and an end to autocracy. Public demonstrations began on 26 January 2011, and developed into a nationwide uprising. Protesters demanded the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, the overthrow of the government, and an end to nearly five decades of Ba’ath party rule.
The Syrian government deployed the Syrian Army to quell the uprising, and several cities were besieged. [30] [3] According to witnesses, soldiers who refused to open fire on civilians were summarily executed by the Syrian Army. [4] The Syrian government denied reports of defections, and blamed "armed gangs" for causing trouble. [7] In late 2011, civilians and army defectors formed fighting units, which began an insurgency campaign against the Syrian regular army. The insurgents unified under the banner of the Free Syrian Army and fought in an increasingly organized fashion. However, the civilian component of the opposition fighters do not have an organized leadership. The uprising has sectarian undertones, as the opposition is dominated by Sunni Muslims, whereas the regime is dominated by Alawite Muslims. [31] The Syrian opposition denies that sectarianism plays a significant role in the uprising, and the Syrian government has yet to mention sectarianism.
According to the UN and other sources, since the beginning of the uprising, up to 9,000 people, primarily protesters, along with 1,900–2,900 armed combatants, have been killed in total. [10] [11] [32] [33]. Many more have been injured, and tens of thousands of protesters have been imprisoned. Over 400 children have been killed as well. [34] [35] Another 400 children have been reportedly arrested and tortured in Syrian prisons. [36] Additionally, over 600 detainees and political prisoners have died under torture. [37]
The Arab League, the USA, the EU states, the GCC states and other regional countries have condemned the use of violence against the protesters. China and Russia has expressed reservation in condemning the regime or applying sanctions and embargoes, believing that such methods could escalate into foreign intervention. However, military intervention has been generally ruled out by foreign powers. [38] The Free Syrian Army and other local opposition forces are believed to be aided by Al-Qaeda's Iraqi branch. The Arab League suspended Syria's membership over the government's response to the crisis [19] but sent an observing mission as part of its proposal for peaceful resolution for the Syrian crisis.
Sopher99 (
talk) 22:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Result
The consensus shows that my latest lede is best. I will take FunkMonk's suggestion to re-add minority support for Bashar Assad as well. Sopher99 ( talk) 04:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
probeslams
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).23dead
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).nyt-suspended
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).