Talk:Free Syrian Army/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Website

Is it just me, or is their website link not working? IntrospectiveReader (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Size of FSA

What is the size of this army? The number in this article keeps changing back and forth, it's confusing. --93.139.204.178 (talk) 13:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It changes due to people defecting all the time, and also differences in sources between news agencies. IntrospectiveReader (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The Size of the Free Syrian Army is disputed right now. 15,000?

File:Free Syrian Army & Syrian National Council.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Free Syrian Army & Syrian National Council.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

The article looks like the press agency of the London based "Syrian Observatory for Human rights". Especially the "armed actions" part. This is nothing more than an addition of unverified press release from one organization, based in England. How many time this only source is used? I lost the count --ChronicalUsual (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The article has over 96 references. All these articles do not use the London based "Syrian Observatory for Human rights". By this point many outside journalists have been able to get into the country and personally report on the Fress Syrian Army. In the article it is also mentioned that there are multiple sources for the number of casualties. Some of the sources are Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) the official state news source, the Local Coordinating Committees (LCC), the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights an independent human rights organization based into London, and lastly numerous international journalist who have covertly gone in the country. -- Guest2625 (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Thisd single source is overused. Not only it is a rebel group but it is in addition based in London, thousands of miles away Syria. Its use is wayy too heavy in the article to consider it as neutral.--ChronicalUsual (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The Syrian Observatory for Human Right's is not a rebel group. Please support your claims with proper references. If you feel the source is being used to heavily find some more opposing sources. The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) is a good place to go to find the government's side of the news. Many Syrian security forces are being injured and killed in the current conflict. This section of the article uses SANA multiple times to indicate the number of Syrian security forces being injured and killed:

On 11 November, Reuters reported that 26 soldiers were killed, while Syrian state media reported the lower figure of 20 soldiers killed at this time. For November, there have been conflicting reports of the number of Syrian soldiers injured and killed. For the month up until 13 November, the Local Coordination Committees have reported about 20 deaths, the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights has reported more than 100 deaths, and the Syrian state media SANA has reported 71 deaths. -- Guest2625 (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Transferring from the article's history page the explanation for the new POV tagging:

10:23, 15 December 2011‎ ChronicalUsual (talk | contribs)‎ (49,271 bytes) (Overruse of one single source, since my last objection, the controversial "Syrian observatory" , based in London and acting as the FSA mouthpiece have been used 14th time in december aginst 3 others references)

Placing the POV tag on the section that the above commentator disputes -- Guest2625 (talk) 01:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

FSA numbers

I know there aren't any real sources on the size of the FSA, but I read that in the past fews days the number has been set back to some 20,000. Impossible, I say. The FSA is holding ground in Homs, Hama, Idlib, Jabal-al-Zawiyah, Zabadani and has a significant pressence in Daraa, Damascus, Douma and Latakia. 20,000 is WAY to small to be able to do that kind of fighting. I liked the number of 40,000, because ongoing defections are a fact. I suppose we should crack up the number of FSA soldiers from 20,000, because 20,000 is to small... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I just added a link to the article from FoxNews which has it at 40,000. I hear up to 60,000 in the Arab media, but I have yet to find a link. Eatabullet (talk) 09:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think so. Because not only soldiers are defecting, but also, civilians are arming against Assad. I heard on Al-Jazeera that Syrian went to Lebanon to buy guns. So I believe there are indeed some 40,000 army defectors, but possibly up to 20,000 armed civilians who are fighting the regime (like in Libya) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I put the 40,000 number in again. It's the most recent number that the FSA gave. I don't completely like the reference because it doesn't clearly state the FSA member who gave the number. The 20,000 number was clearly attributed to Col. Riad Asaad. Anyway, based on all the sources out there the best statement is that the number is simply not known. --Guest2625 (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No leadership, and the majority are civilians

See: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/02/201221315020166516.html This Wikipedia article reads like a puff-piece. FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Then that is a separate group. One should keep in mind that the FSA refers to the defector section. The civilians are separate insurgents. The FSA refers to the army defector component of the uprising. The article you have there only describes Nir rosens trip to the damascus suburbs. Additionally he confirms the presence of defectors, and personally met defected military personnel , but also confirmed colonels and generals defected. Besides of which, we can't base everything in the article over one al jazeera journalist. I7laseral (talk) 02:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

We also made it quite clear in the article that Riad assad only has control over battalion commanders, and not individuals. He did not say there is no leadership, he said there is no central leadership. Please read more carefully. I7laseral (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore the Question in the article was "who are the armed opposition?" not "who are the Free Syrian army?". He pretty much says the Free Syrian Army are not really the main component of the armed opposition, he did not say that civilians are the primary members of the Free Syrian Army. I7laseral (talk) 02:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, the entire armed opposition is referred to as the "Free Syrian Army" in the media, therefore it is important to point out that this is wrong, and that's what Rosen tries to do. FunkMonk (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Then please go on the syrian uprising page and type "armed civilian combatants" into the belligerent section. I7laseral (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll do it. I7laseral (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Controversies

The article fails in highlighting the controversies surrounding "Free Syrian Army". To start with, Syrian media describes them as "terrorists of different nationalities as well as fugitive murderers and criminals wanted and chased by the authorities and the army forces for getting involved in the killing of Syrian civilians." This is a significant viewpoint that needs to be explained in the article. SadSwanSong (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• This gives undue weight to state propaganda. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your politics with slurs like "state propaganda". If anything, there is undue weight given to other types of sources and not enough to Syrian sources. The Syrian source describing the "Free Syrian Army" as terrorists can stay because the source has been properly attributed and only reflects what the Syrian media reports.SadSwanSong (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As the article clearly says, this description does not come from the media, but directly from the foreign minister of Syria. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a prominent viewpoint that requires explanation. SadSwanSong (talk) 06:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not a neutral view point. Turkish government does not recognize or accept the fact that they committed mass genocide against the Armenians, doesn't mean we go crazy trying to express the Turkish viewpoint on the Armenian Genocide page. Sopher99 (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm Armenian, with family members who perished in the genocide, and I find it outrageous that you're trying to liken the genocide to the violence in Syria. Specifically, you liken Turkish regime's denials of the genocide to the indisputable fact that the "Free Syrian Army" are gangs of bandits and terrorists.SadSwanSong (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Gonna back up Mike Rosoft and Sopher99 on this. Wikipedia does not give WP:UNDUE weight to state propaganda. SANA's position that the opposition is a "foreign conspiracy" of "armed terrorist gangs" is well documented here on Wikipedia. Its position is certainly not excluded from this content. What you seem to be wanting is to give equal or greater weighting to the hysterical claims of a media outlet controlled wholesale by a dictatorial regime versus myriad reports verified by a number of independent reporters from Al Jazeera, The New York Times, The Independent, Reuters, and other reliable sources recognized by Wikipedia as verifiable. And that violates Wikipedia's guidelines on presenting arguments over disputed content with their due weight. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: User:SadSwanSong has been found to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:Jacob Peters. Any edits to the page made by him may be reverted without any further reason. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Being a sock puppeteer or not, he had a point. The Free Syrian Army is accused of committing mass beheadings of surrendered Army personnel and kidnapping and torturing those who refuse to join them. There are many cases were civilians belonging to religious minorities are held hostages. Failure to reflect this will only earn this article a nice POV tag.--Rafy talk 01:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The first reference [1] does not state that the Free Syrian Army has committed mass beheadings. It states that the shabiha have committed beheadings. Relevant quote:

To explain, they showed me a film taken from the mobile phone of a captured Shabiha. Prisoners lay face down on the ground, hands tied behind their backs. One-by-one, their heads were cut off.

The man wielding the knife said, tauntingly, to the first: "This is for freedom."

As his victim's neck opened, he went on: "This is for our martyrs. And this is for collaborating with Israel."

The third reference [2] states that the Free Syrian Army has taken prisoners which they believe worked for the Iranian government. "The rebel army alleged that the Iranians were actually sharpshooters firing on protesters and linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards." If the captured Iranians were Iranian Revolutionary Guard is not clear but taking enemy combatants prisoner during war is normal. The reference says nothing about that there are many cases where civilians belonging to religious minorities are held hostage.

The second reference appears to have some relevant information, however, it's hard to fully understand the report and verify because it is in Dutch and isn't in written form making machine translation not possible. It would be helpful for discussion to know what exactly you want added to the article since the references weren't that clear.--Guest2625 (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I might have read the BBC piece too fast. However, the FSA is admittingly executing their prisoners, this should be mentioned.

Third link concerns kidnapping pilgrims not armed groups. It's highly unlikely that Iranian sharpshooters bring their wives and children to a warzone. The BBC link contains more details on the use of hostages by the FSA.

The Dutch report is partly in English, and it should be published today in the NY times according to the same report. In the report HRW across the border in Turkey condemn the use of torture, kidnapping and executions by the armed opposition. It's very interesting that the American media is silent when it comes to human rights abuses by the Syrian opposition, while Europe is more objective showing the horrors of war committed by both sides. Here is another report on Dutch national TV showing how the "Democratic opposition forces" hacked to pieces those who refused to join their "peaceful protests" in Homs.

The article also fails to mention that the armed opposition gets a substantial part of its support from militant Sunni groups. This fact is very well documented in the news.--Rafy talk 19:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Criticism that the FSA executes some of their prisoners that they find guilty of murder can be added. The statement that the FSA kidnaps and tortures I don't feel is backed up by the sources given. Anything that has a valid source and balances the article should definitely be added. And when that NY Times article becomes available link it here on the talk page so it can be read.

From the BBC source it is not clear that the FSA kidnaps. The interviewed individual "Corporal Yousseff" was not a civilian but rather a soldier who manned a military checkpoint. Taking enemy prisoners during war is normal. The subsequent tit for tat kidnapping of apparent civilians wasn't sanctioned by the FSA. The FSA commander stated "Some hotheads have been kidnapping Christians," one of the senior FSA commanders in the area told me. "We have got to calm this down." The crisis was finally resolved and everyone was released. The second source that mentions the kidnapping of 11 Iranian men on a bus carrying pilgrims appears to indicate that the FSA felt that these individuals were sharpshooters firing on protesters and linked to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. There have been numerous reports of the involvement of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards during this conflict, suspicion of Iranian men of military age traveling around Syria by the FSA is valid, just as suspicion of American men of military age traveling around Syria by the Syrian government is valid.

That the FSA gets a substantial part of its support from militant Sunni groups is not a sourced statement and as far as I know is not true. The FSA in fact has rejected militant Sunni support http://asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=1&id=28585.

The Dutch sources might be fine, but it's hard to have them verified by other editors. If you can find the material in Dutch written form that would be great because then it could be computer translated. American media might be silent on a topic, however, there are numerous European media sources available to the English speaking world such as France 24, Deutsche Welle, Der Spiegel (English version), and all of British and Irish media.--Guest2625 (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Ashart al-Awsat is a Saudi-backed newspaper, in a normal situation it would be ok to use but in this conflict all media outlets connected with the Saudi regime are strictly anti-Syrian. This is similar to Iranian and Russian news agencies which are clearly biased towards the other side. Here are a number of references I found in 2 a min google search on the presence of militant Islamists within the FSA [3][4][5][6][7].--Rafy talk 22:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Two minute searches are not the greatest thing for wikipedia articles. I've read all the sources that you gave and none of them stated that there were militant Islamist in the FSA. It just appears that you dumped here a bunch of key word searched articles. The articles do mention militant Islamist in the armed opposition but not in the FSA. The FSA is not the same thing as the armed opposition. It is a subgroup. If you could cut and paste the paragraph where it states that Islamist are in the FSA that would be great. The Ashart al-Awsat article cannot simply be ignored [8]. It quotes an FSA official who clearly states what the FSA position is on Islamic militants. Please just indicate what sentences you want added and give specific sources.--Guest2625 (talk) 00:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Human Rights Watch report mentioned in the Dutch broadcast was released today confirming some of the things that you mentioned above. I'll add the material on human rights abuses by the FSA and see what news response the FSA has to the claims.--Guest2625 (talk) 18:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, you may remove the POV tag if no one else minds. I might add a section on allegations of radical Islamic presence later, There are a bunch of neutral references of that one.--Rafy talk 09:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Spelling

I think the fsa's boss' last name shoud have two sses, so Ryal el-Assaad.

Who is using this "FSA" abbreviation? Is it used in a formal way by the Free Syrian Army? Or is it widely used by media? Meowy 02:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think "FSA" is a commonly used abbreviation by the media for the Free Syrian Army, see the following google news search [9].--Guest2625 (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Rationale for expanding the Islamic influence section

Al-Zawahiri's support and mention of other Islamist anti-government groups is relevant since the FSA doesn't have a clear structure. This makes it impossible to rule out the possibility that those elements motivated by the idea of global Jihad are not active within the FSA. There have been confirmed reports that members of al Qaeda have infiltrated opposition groups, who imo are mainly composed of those who are loosely allied under the FSA. Attacks on Christians by al-Faquq brigade have been confirmed by more than one source, so it shouldn't go unnoticed. I have also read a piece on Haaretz claiming that these reports are copy-pasted from a pro Assad website, this is just a plain lie as any speaker of Arabic will see that syriatruth's article mainly deals with some prominent Christian families who were expelled, while making a brief mention of a local Orthodox source's claim that around 90% were expelled by the FSA. The Jesuits are denying they were forced to leave, while their website mentions how they helped local Christians who were kicked out of their homes (تنهّد الرجل وقال: لقد طردونا). I'm still mentioning their denial, but one must understand that this is a calculated strategy were they hope that by claiming that the others are tolerant (even though they are not) they will, eventually, become tolerant.--Rafy talk 00:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you ever considered that intense artillery shelling kicked Christians out of Homs? When you use artillery shelling, its random fire. The Fides article itself says they can't confirm anything, and Fides itself put out an article where Jesuits in Homs deny it. fides is the only website engaging in this story. I call bias.

http://www.fides.org/aree/news/newsdet.php?idnews=31262&lan=eng 01:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Al nusra is Al Nusra. FSA is FSA. I am deleting Al nusra from this because it does not belong here. Sopher99 (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

because al nusra did the aleppo and damascus bombings, I am removing the bombings from the FSA page. The bombings are mentioned on al nusra's page, where they belong. Sopher99 (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well unfortunately it's not up to you (or me for that matter) to decide who is right and who is not, that's why we need to mention all sides including official Christian sources. Al-Nusra is relevant since it is an example of how global Jihadist were able to infiltrate the armed opposition, were the FSA plays the main part. This has been confirmed by US intelligence and it is the main reason why western governments are reluctant to aid the rebels. So it's an important factor here. Could you please undo your last edits until a compromise with more editors is reached.--Rafy talk 01:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Al nusra is important, but you can't put it in the article. You can't just assign random opposition groups to the article to try to prove a point. This article is about the Free Syrian Army, can we keep it that way? Please? *note, ill be out for the next hour Sopher99 (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

My point is that the FSA is an umbrella name with no effective central command, so any group can claim to be working under its name. This includes Army deserters, tribal fighters, or even some Pakistani dude. Anyway, nowhere in the text is claimed that the Nusra are part of the FSA, what you deleted is a paragraph on suicide car bombs, this is very relevant since the FSA has been accused of being behind this by Syria. The other paragraph sites US intelligence which in turn confirms the presence of "terrorists" among opposition forces. Last time I checked the largest body of armed opposition was by far the FSA.--Rafy talk 02:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sentence edits are explained in the talk history, so that collaborative editing can be done faster. If there are any disputes with a given edit and its explanation, either edit that sentence and explain in talk history or paste that sentence in the talk page so that the sentence can be discussed more thoroughly, like this we should be able to work as efficiently and collaboratively as possible.--Guest2625 (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You're acting like you're a moderator with full rights to remove what you don't like regardless of previous discussion. This is not how disputes are solved at Wikipedia. here are my objections to your edits:

[10] commentator IS an expert of Islamic militancy.

[11] Al-Bara ibn Malik is well known brigade that is active within the FSA.[12]

[13] which repetitive sentences. I used quotation marks to indicate this this was the exact wording of the source, don't try to play this down.

[14] how about this?

[15] you don't have to be genius to realise that any Saudi intervention will have to be coordinated with the FSA. this is very relevant to the article.--Rafy talk 23:09, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't mean to seem like I'm arbitrarily removing material that is why I always try to give a clear and concise explanation. The talk page is a great place to go into greater depth about the different sentence edits.

[16] commentator IS an expert of Islamic militancy.

The individual might be an expert on Islamic militancy but it would be nice to have a link indicated this information, as far as I can tell this is a blog article. I also have a problem with the plurality of the word "experts" since it is only one individual writing the article. Another problem with the sentence is that it states "several" indications when there is no such proof in the article. There is only one online video.

[17] Al-Bara ibn Malik is well known brigade that is active within the FSA.[18]

Your link points me to a google search of the group. This unfortunately tells me nothing and would appear to be original research. The referenced blog states clearly that "this battalion is most likely independent and doing its own thing" therefore its not neutral as an editor to state they are "FSA fighters" but rather the neutral statement for the sentence is "the group".

[19] which repetitive sentences. I used quotation marks to indicate this this was the exact wording of the source, don't try to play this down.

The first and second sentence state the exact same thing, except the first sentence uses biased language. Ethnic cleansing is a biased phrase and not a neutral point of view that is why the catholic agency quoted the statement. If they had been confident of the statement they would have used it without quotes. The second sentence is the neutral statement that an unbiased reporter uses.

[20] how about this?

Sure that source can be added and the statement that a charitable organization supports the claim

[21] you don't have to be genius to realise that any Saudi intervention will have to be coordinated with the FSA. this is very relevant to the article.

Unfortunately, its not clear to be whether the potential Saudi forces will work with the FSA and to assume so would be original research on my part. These potential Saudi forces could work with the FSA, the Muslim Brotherhood, local Salafists, foreign fighters, on their own, etc. Frankly, I don't know what they are going to do. The source you referenced simply does not tell who they are going to work with. --Guest2625 (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The google search results lead to several opposition website which mention the Baraa brigade among other brigades of the FSA.[22][23][24]

The Syrian Orthodox metropolitan sources told Fides that there is "ethnic cleansing of Christians". If we cite Fides then we should also mention that the exact words of their sources were "ethnic cleansing".

The FSA is by far the largest opposition group on the ground and any foreign intervention very is relevant to them. If you don't think that this is a good place for this info I will move it to the "uprising"'s article.--Rafy talk 01:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The google search results lead to several opposition website which mention the Baraa brigade among other brigades of the FSA.[25][26][27]

These three references are not reliable sources that a wikipedia article should depend upon. The original wordpress blog reference might be fine and according to that source "this battalion is most likely independent and doing its own thing".

The Syrian Orthodox metropolitan sources told Fides that there is "ethnic cleansing of Christians". If we cite Fides then we should also mention that the exact words of their sources were "ethnic cleansing".

As I stated before the quote "ethnic cleansing" is non neutral point of view language. Wikipedia articles should strive to be neutral and the second sentence is neutral and states the same thing as the first sentence.

The FSA is by far the largest opposition group on the ground and any foreign intervention very is relevant to them. If you don't think that this is a good place for this info I will move it to the "uprising"'s article.

Yes, I think that the this material would be more relevant in the Syrian uprising article. --Guest2625 (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Watan.com is a news website clearly supportive of the rebels, and it lists al-Bara brigade among the brigades of the FSA. The author of the article, حسان الحموي, is also a very prolific supporter of the uprising. SyrianRevolution.org is another website maintained by the rebels that mentions the brigade in question as part of the FSA in its coverage. The blog writer is unsure of the nature of the brigade but opposition sources confirm beyond doubt that it is functioning as the FSA's arm in Baqras (بقرص).

There are over 9000 occurrences (well not really) of the term "ethnic cleansing" in wikipedia. The thing is not whether it is ok to use this phrase but to attribute it properly to its source when mentioned.--Rafy talk 12:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There are over 9000 occurrences (well not really) of the term "ethnic cleansing" in wikipedia. The thing is not whether it is ok to use this phrase but to attribute it properly to its source when mentioned.

To use the word ethnic cleansing even in quotes is biased language when there are not enough reliable sources confirming this information. Wikipedia strives to have a neutral point of view and using a loaded term in quotes is a dishonest way of getting biased language into an article. This talk page might not be the best place to talk about this issue. An article such as a feature article with more editors might be a better place and actually on the Homs article there is already a discussion going on concerning this topic. See the following edit on the Homs page [28] and the subsequent discussion on the talk page [29].

Watan.com is a news website clearly supportive of the rebels, and it lists al-Bara brigade among the brigades of the FSA. The author of the article, حسان الحموي, is also a very prolific supporter of the uprising. SyrianRevolution.org is another website maintained by the rebels that mentions the brigade in question as part of the FSA in its coverage. The blog writer is unsure of the nature of the brigade but the opposition sources confirms beyond doubt that it is considered that is is functioning as the FSA's arm in Baqras (بقرص).

I'm not sure what we are disagreeing about at the moment. If I assume that the original source given by you is that of experts of Islamic militancy which I will for the moment then the blog entry is enough to establish the facts I think that we both should agree upon:

1. "a group of around twenty individuals claiming to be part of the Free Syrian Army (FSA), released a video message to YouTube announcing the formation of a new battalion named the al-Bara’ ibn Malik Martyrs Brigade"

2."Many will point to the flag in the background used in the above video as a sign that these individuals are indeed al-Qa’ida since it looks strikingly similar to the one used by al-Qa’ida’s Islamic State of Iraq"

3."[in the] video, they also bear the old Syrian flag: As such, for any student of al-Qa’ida and jihadism, the use of a Syrian flag shows direct support of a nationalist project, which is contrary to al-Qa’ida’s worldview."

4.Lastly, "this battalion is most likely independent and doing its own thing"

Also, I think it is important for me to note that the Free Syrian Army rejects any connection with Al Qaeda and based on interviews with individual FSA fighters find the notion absurd. See the following informative reportage by Al Jazeera [30].--Guest2625 (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, claims are ok as long as they're properly attributed. (read WP:SUBSTANTIATE)

Honestly, I think that you realise that you the Baraa is an FSA brigade. I will move this paragraph to the uprising's article, I just feel we're going in cycles with your attitude.--Rafy talk 19:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this argument is getting pointless, and I can't even understand all of it. Al-Nusra and FSA are not affiliated and the talk at Syrian uprising has over time decided that more or less. The FSA may not agree with Christians or like them very much. But they're not going to kill them. They are not Islamists. Other True muslims based on their own law won't kill Christians. Have you ever thought that maybe the FSA displaced the Christians in Homs to get them away from the shelling, or the Christians simply left or got killed by the shelling? FSA may have an islamist brigade or two, but they are not islamist. This page says the SNC and the FSA leadership and most of the brigades are secular. This argument is silly. Jacob102699 (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The FSA is more or less a Sunni militant organisation that is seeking to topple the Alawite led government in Syria. In doing so they have sought to purge areas they control from non-Sunnis presence. Of course they try and put a different face of tolerance and secularism as they try to appeal to western powers, however their Arabic language announcements bears clear signs of Islamism uncommon in the Levant, starting with the Basmala and the excessive use of Takbir and Hamdala. If we decide to remove criticism simply because they denied it then we should do the same for Syrian government claims as well.--Rafy talk 00:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The Basmalah, Taknir, and Hamdala have nothing to do with Islamism. If you think that you are stereotyping Muslims. All of these phrases describe praise to Allah which is common anywhere in the Arab World in any kind of announcements, Governmental, Religious or Islamist. Where is a source for the FSA purging non-Sunni's? I believe they might purge Alawites, but no one else. Jacob102699 (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

They have everything to do with Islamism and nothing to do with secularism. Anyone with basic knowledge on Syria will know that these phrases are very uncommmon there, this is Syria we're talking about, not Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. I've lived most of my life in the Middle East so I should know better.--Rafy talk 16:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This debate is interesting because it raises the question of what exactly is the Free Syrian Army.

I think this page fails to describe really what the Free Syrian Army is. It presents the FSA as a uniter army strong of 70 000 men under the clear leadership of a military council and a defected colonel.

But the reality is different. The FSA stricto census consist of a few officers and some troops who are held in a refugee camp in Turkey. This is the FSA as a structured organization.

The rest is more a franchised name which is used to describe all rebels groups. I added today the article about a field commander of 100 men saying that they don't have contact with the FSA leadership in Turkey. The Tawid brigade, which is composed of jihadist fighters, also said they have no contact with FSA leaders.

Riad Al Asaad and his few men have no links with jihadists, I firmly believe. But they also have no links and no authority over 95% of the rebels fighting on the ground.

FSA is a ghost army, a PR face to the world. What Riad al Asaad say has very little incidence over what happen on the ground as he has no command on most of the rebels. This page should either be oriented toward what the FSA really is, or expanded to take account all rebels groups branded by the medua under this name, including islamists. Brigade93 (talk) 09:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh please, all rebel groups start out like this. The basic fact is this: If the FSA were to overthrow the Syrian government eventually, Riad assad would come to Syria and be the new government chief of staff/minister of defense. Groups like al shabaab and Al Qaeda don't even have radios or cell phones to communicate with each other, meaning their leaders are almost absolutely useless. Yet when ever we kill their leaders people act as if it had significance.

Besides the page already explains that RIad assad only keeps in touch with the 22 battalion leaders, and the battalion probably only make up 30-40% of the FSA. Sopher99 (talk) 12:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Christians leaving Homs paragraph

The paragraph

According to Vatican City-controlled state media outlet Agenzia Fides, 90% of the Christian population of Homs, around 10,000 people, were expelled from their homes by members of the al-Faruq Brigade.[266][267] Some local Christian families confirmed that they were expelled from Homs because they were "considered close to the regime".[268] Jesuits in Homs disputed the cause of the exodus, and stated that Christians were not targeted specifically, but fled the city on their own initiative because of fear of the ongoing armed conflict.[269]

This paragraph has been removed because non state media has indicated that the information is simply not true. A number of editors have already objected to this paragraph and given various different reasons for their objections. No international media ever reported on this incidence since they were likely not able to confirm the story. The one source that did report on the information was the religious state of the Vatican City and even when they did report they reported two different possible explanations for what happened. The McClatchy article makes it clear why not a single international media source picked up on this obvious story:

There is no point in included something that is simply not true. If someone wants to add this false rumor which relies on a non confirmed source then they should discuss the issue here. --Guest2625 (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Its not true per those sources, but its true per the source that claimed it. FunkMonk is right, if someone is contesting the claim than write about it, don't just remove it. Both POVs need to be presented so Wikipedia can stay neutral. It's not up to us to decide who is lying or who is telling the truth. For us and Wikipedia to keep proper NPOV, like I said, we present both sides points of view. Just removing the paragraph altogether because you believe one source over the other is not proper Wiki procedure. EkoGraf (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The material should not have been reincluded. Currently, there is a disagreement on the material that should be resolved here on the talk page. Looking at the article history four editors have disagreed with including that material. The editors will need to come to a consensus here on the talk page. I'll have to wait until tomorrow to revert. --Guest2625 (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph has been removed for the moment, while it can be discussed here on the talk page. There have been a number of editors which have disapproved of including the material. The paragraph was also two weeks ago on the dispute resolution noticeboard where it was recommended that before inclusion the material be discussed on the talk page to build consensus.

I agree with Ekograph that it is important that Wikipedia articles are kept neutral and that's why its important to have a full spectrum of editors, however, it is also important that the sources are reliable. A reliable source which did a proper investigation by interviewing multiple Christians determined that the claim was false. Neutrality is not furthered by including information which has been proven false. Reasons against inclusion:

1 - The original claim is based on a biased source and reporting agency. The reporting agency in this case is Fides Service the state news agency of the Vatican City a christian theocratic state. It should be clear to most editors that in this case of supposed Christian persecution that a Christian state media outlet is not unbiased and not a reliable source.

Fides Service freely admits in its mission statement that it has the biased agenda of informing and promoting missionary activity. This is a quote from its mission statement:

"Fides News Agency (Fides) was created on 5 June, 1927, by order of the Council Superior General of the Pontifical Society for the Propagation of the Faith, as the first Missionary Agency of the Church and among the first agencies in the world, at the service of informing and promoting missionary activity."

2 - The original source for the claim the Syrian Orthodox Church is also biased and an unreliable source. The christian news agency itself states that "Vicar Apostolic of Aleppo, Mgr. Giuseppe Nazzaro told Fides: 'We have no sources to confirm this information directly'" [31]

3 - Reading the three news stories by the Vatican's Christian news media outlet you can clearly see it's usage of biased and non-neutral language towards the subject matter.

4 - Also, why did no reliable source in the media such as AP, Reuters, or BBC report on this supposed claim? They obviously heard about this claim and it's not like these media outlets in the past have had a problem reporting on the misdeeds of the FSA. The reason that they did not report on the claim is that like Wikipedia they have standards about reporting and they were likely not able to verify the claims or more specifically as in the case of McClatchy were able to prove that the claim was false.

5 - Lastly, someone included Catholic Culture as a source. It obviously is not an acceptable source just read its mission statement. It's clearly a blog of a Christian nonprofit organization. --Guest2625 (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

By excluding the claim, it being reliable or not, is still not in line with Wiki NPOV policy. You say the source itself says its biased and an unreliable source. Well, we have based dozens of articles about the uprising based on opposition sources which themselves are biased against the government. Why would this source be any different than to exclude it? In any case, you keep saying a reliable source determined that the claim was false, but you haven't provided that source, I haven't seen it. Please post it here if you would. Thank you. If the source is clear enough that the claim is false than I will withdraw my opposition to removing the paragraph. EkoGraf (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There is only one reliable source concerning this event and it is from McClatchy. This a direct quote from the article http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/23/2764247_p2/rare-inside-view-of-syrias-rebels.html:

The group also has been accused of targeting Christians in Homs. But interviews with Syrian Christian refugees who’d fled to Lebanon from Homs and Qusayr uncovered no evidence that Christians were targeted because of their religion. Rather, Christian refugees from Qusayr said that a Christian man and 16 others working with government security forces in Qusayr had been captured by Farouq fighters in March, prompting some Christians to flee. Members of Farouq confirmed the story, as well as the arrests.

--Guest2625 (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Guest2625, please stop removing that Vatican sourced section. There are larger sections attributed to rebel sources, I would like you doing the same to them.--Rafy talk 23:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph can be reinserted once we have come to a consensus. At the moment we are having an edit dispute. It's best if we just take a few days and discuss the material that will be the most productive approach. Four editors disapprove of this material. The paragraph clearly needs to be discussed and shouldn't be inserted unilaterally.--Guest2625 (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I still don't understand why is the Vatican a biased source? They are after all not involved in the conflict. Even if so there are several other sources that confirmed the story such as this one.--Rafy talk 00:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Guest2625 - you seem to be misunderstanding the editing process. You do not simply delete content for no other reason than it goes against what you want this article to say. The content is on topic and is fully cited. The sources involved have already been discussed and no legitimate arguments were brought forward to reject them: [32] Meowy 02:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

First of, Wikipedia is not a democracy, we don't count votes who oppose or who are against. If a section is sourced than it stays. FunkMonk, Meowy and Rafy are all right. One reliable source disputing another isn't enough to totally exclude the source and paragraph. What is proper to do per Wiki policy is that we put in the paragraph both the claim by the Vatican source and the counter claim in those interviews. If you want to count the votes it seems that four are for putting the paragraph in based on the source provided and four are against putting it based on another source. What we should do which is proper concensus and Wiki policy is to put both sources and both claims (Vatican and miamiherald interviews). Also, the source you provided that you said should counter the claim by the Vatican of the forced removal of Christians from Homs province actually doesn't deny the removal. It only denies that the removal of some Christians from the province wasn't based on religion as the Vatican said but based on their association with the government, so in essence your source also confirms that there has been some forced evictions of Christians by FSA forces. If anything your source gives more support for the paragraph to stay. EkoGraf (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I feel that your addition of the miami herald claim is being given undue weight, and requires the addition of further content indicating how marginal and unlikely its viewpoint is (addition of things like the claims that armed Muslim gangs were going around Christian districts in Homs, breaking into houses and saying that the propery and its contents have been condfiscated "for Islam" and that the occupants either must leave immediately or be killed). Meowy 16:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Meowy, I totally agree with you, but I added it for the sake of compromise so Guest or any other editor who has an issue with this could have their side of the story said as well. We than let the readers form their own opinions on who to trust. If you have more sources that confirm the forced religious evictions than great, add them. EkoGraf (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well it does seem like we ended up in a tie as to whether to include or not include. I don't think an article is improved by including hearsay which is later proven to be false by a proper crosschecked investigation. I've edited Syrian government related articles and would never include hearsay of this fashion in the Syrian army article. This single piece of false hearsay is spread across wikipedia. I've currently seen it in the Homs city article, the sectarianism in the Syrian uprising article, and it likely is in the Homs siege and Timeline article. I don't think hearsay of this fashion belongs with the necessitated detailed response in all these different articles. Anyway, if this false hearsay is going to be included there really is no need to drag the Catholic church into the controversy the Jesuits clearly explained what happened, the "some sources in the Syrian Orthodox Church" should be given ownership of their claim, which is unfortunate since it places the Syrian Orthodox Church in a bad light.--Guest2625 (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Infighting

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/27/us-syria-rebels-idUSBRE83Q0S120120427.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by FunkMonk (talk • contribs) 16:39, 2 May 2012

The article is hijacked by "pro-democracy" internet activists. Do you really expect to write about this issue?--Rafy talk 15:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

POV Tag July 2012

Facts I feel incorrect or misrepresented: 1. 'comprised mostly of defected Syrian Armed Forces personnel' 2. Role: ' Civilian protection' 3. Estimated size 4. TO BE CONTINUED.... Armins (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wow.. to be continued. Is this some sort of movie sequel. Guest2625 (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

May I remind you, this is not a forum. References 8 and 9 are not valid and therefore the line about "comprised mostly of defected Syrian armed personal" needs to removed until it can be properly cited. STOLE MY COOKIES (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

POV TAG ISSUES

Any particular reason why the POV tag keeps getting removed from this heavily one sided article? It's pretty obvious to me, as this is an ongoing and very important event, the dramatic propaganda effort being put into this article.

Firstly, lets examine the sources and just homogeneous they are. Lets examine the pages edit history. Lets examine the vested interest and motives of those doing most of the editing here. Lets examine why literally hours after I first added the POV tag to this article, I was targeted with a man in the middle attack culminating in the theft my session cookies and subsequent hijacking of my wikipedia original account which I had been using for years.

It's obvious that not everyone agrees with the content of this article, so why is that that something as simple as a POV tag can't stay up for more than a day?

What exactly is a reliable resource? I read this page Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Questionable_sources and I can't seem to figure out why any source critical of the so called "free Syrian army" (see: euphemism + terrorism) is promptly labeled "not a reliable source" or "not a source" and revoked.

I have no interest in editing this article or getting involved or in the way of your little propaganda effort. I am not even particularly interested in making a list of all one sided hearsay I see in the article like I was asked to do, but the POV tag will stay. The lack of oversight and counterbalance here is sickening.

At least explain, to me and countless others who have read this article and felt disgusted with titles like "civilian protection," why the POV is being removed?" No one is saying Assad is innocent, but the obvious bias and censorship effort, as result of the vested interests of few, in this article is pretty sickening. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

STOLE MY COOKIES (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone please explain why Al Arabia is a legit source since half the article is basically a repeat of their Syrian news real... STOLE MY COOKIES (talk) 04:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You are nearly out of your mind. Plain and simple. A source is not reliable if it state controlled media, or deliberately and blatantly takes a side, such as calling the FSA "terrorists". This page is not propaganda, it is an article explaining the formation and operations of the Free Syrian Army. No one is going to kidnap you either, and no one here is a sheep. Finally Al Arabiya is hardly used here, and first shows up as source #54. There are 53 sources used before Al Arabiya is used. I7laseral (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

"Al Arabiya is hardly used here" -- It's used 6 times, that I found. Saudi owned sources make probably 50% of the article, but they aren't one sided or "state controlled media, or deliberately and blatantly takes a side," such as calling the FSA angels, liberators and freedom fighters? STOLE MY COOKIES (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

6 uses of Al arabiya out of 302 references used in the article, which is 2%. When do they ever call them angels liberators or freedom fighters? Show me one instance, give me a link, and don't give me an opinion article. I7laseral (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Simple question: is Al Arabya state owned media? Yes or no? STOLE MY COOKIES (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Al arabiya is an independent media, whose shareholders are the Saudi royal family. Asharq al awsat was approved by the Saudi royal family. No media can operate in SA without approval. Asharq al awasat is independent, being neither funded nor controlled by Saudi Arabia, and its even based in London. You also dodged my challenge to find any source that we use that calls the FSA angels or liberators. I7laseral (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

So now we're just making up our own facts? According to the wikipedia article, which is sourced to a BBC article, Al Arabya is, in fact, STATE MEDIA OWNED BY SAUDI ARABIA. So, please tell why state media which is pro-"FSA" is allowed yet state media which is anti-:"FSA" is not allowed. Asharq, while not directly considered state media, is in fact state media as it is owned and run by a member of the Saudi Royal family. I'm pretty sure all media in the cesspool that Saudi Arabia is state owned, run or funded - a consequence of of their backwards and antiquated way of life. In regards to you asking me to find you such and such quote, I have never personally watched, seen or read any material from any of these outlets we are discussing. I have no interest in doing so either. However, I Know for a fact that they are state media and should be treated as such. My suggestion: either remove the pro-"FSA" state media OR include anti-"FSA" state media. As no state media is allowed here, it needs to be removed whether you personally like it or not. STOLE MY COOKIES (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually Al Arabia is owned by the middle eastern broadcasting company, which is not state owned. Also just because a member of the Royal family is the owner, doesn't mean its state owned. There 15,000 members of the Saudi royal family. 15,000.

Nevertheless, I will in fact replace both the Al Arabiya and Al Sharq al Awasat sources tomorrow morning, to reduce controversy. (Its 2 am here on the eastern coast, goodnight). I7laseral (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I just finished reading the article, top to bottom, and I will admit it has been cleaned up considerably. However, I still feel like the tag should remain until the controversial sources are removed and some additional information is provided about just who these fighters are. I have read several reports which suggested the number of actual Syrians in the "FSA" were far and few. A report just came out a few hours ago about a pair of journalists, "Jeruen Oerlemans and John Cantile," who were abducted by the "FSA" and then subsequently released. They are claiming that none of their captors were actually Syrian, few could even speak Arabic at all and some were native English speakers including a few with British accents. This isn't the only report of it's kind, but this should be alarming to those who actually believe this purely a domestic issue within Syria. In reference to the Oerlemans and Cantile case, no reports I've read have attempted to assert or even question if it's possible that their English speaking captors were perhaps covert Western special operations forces guys. All the reports suggest that the Britons we're merely Jihadist Muzzys whom traveled to Syria, which is defiantly possible, plausible, probable and likely. STOLE MY COOKIES (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Stole My Cookies from your user log it appears that you're the sock-puppet of Armin and from that account it appears that you have been blocked by an administrator. The three points that you brought up in the above section were changed and for this reason the pov tag was removed. The material that you bring up in this section does not make any sense. I don't understand what you are saying about junkies and black sheep. Also, the racial slur you make towards middle easterners is completely inappropriate and won't be tolerated. Guest2625 (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This account is no a sockpuppet as you claim. Reread the first talk post in this section. You know my account was compromised (because I added a POV tag?? to what was a ridiculously one sided article that claimed terrorists are protecting citizens among other absurd claims) that is why I made this one and that is why I am rather upset and persistent about the situation in the first place. You know damn well I didn't make any "racial slurs" like you claim. The article is loaded with references sourced to various outlets which are NOT Appropriate for wikipedia. Al Arabya, which is Saudi state media and very controversial in the first place (they are known to incite violence) and other sources do not belong here and they will not be tolerated. The article used to read like an Al Arabya news real, but thankfully it has been cleaned up CONSIDERABLY since I first added the POV tag. There is A LOT of work still to be done and I am not interested in getting involved but I am motivated, as a result of my account being HACKED, to keep that POV tag up until you or whoever removes content referenced to said sources. I7laseral said he/she would make said changed yesterday morning but that never happened yet you still removed the POV tag. I have no vested interest in the content of this article nor do I really care about Syria. I think that maybe it's time an administrator stepped in to make a final decision regarding what are and aren't appropriate sources. STOLE MY COOKIES (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Stole My Cookies your arguments for the exclusion of Al Arabyia as a reference are irrational. Al Arabyia is referenced four times in an article of 300 references. All those references could easily be changed to other references that state the same thing, however, that would be a waste of time since all the reference information for the new sources would have to be filled out. Also, there is nothing wrong with using Al Arabyia. It's considered a reliable source. Currently, in this article there are 23 references to SANA Syria's state media. Lastly, your language is completely unacceptable. You're unfortunately making racial slurs and using profanity. Guest2625 (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's right for those who have vested interest in the PR aspect of these recent events or those who are taking sides in the conflict should be doing so much of the editing here. Consider this; as bad as Assad may be and as violent as his stooges are, those who sympathize with any terrorists, in this case the so called FSA, are no better than Assad himself. If you sympathize with the FSA and their violent tactics, then you are no better than Assad. Some people make decisions and formulate opinions based on morality, right and wrong; and then there are those who choose to pick a side and stick with it no matter what the reality of the situation may be. I do not condone, support or cheer for any violence. The domestic issues which Syria is facing can and will only be resolved through non violent means. What I see going on here is a bunch of FSA sympathizers doing the vast majority of the editing on this article and as a result of this other views are being locked out. The FSA are terrorists by definition. Some of their actions are listed here: List_of_terrorist_incidents,_2012. So please tell me why it is that this view, that the FSA are in fact a terror group, is being locked out and excluded from this article? Likewise, if you're sympathetic with Assad or his regime, then you shouldn't be involved in the editorial process either. Especially if, like Guest2625 and I7laseral, you can't keep your obvious biases and affiliations from seeping into each and every one of your edits and reverts as well as the ongoing incessant censorship of opposing views, even if those views are legitimately sourced. On that note and despite their considerable contributions to this article, I feel that aforementioned users should be barred, henceforth, from the editorial process. I see no one is jumping to include any information from the flurry of reports that came out concerning the recently released men previously held captive by the so called FSA, especially not either of you two. (or are you the same person?) As I mentioned previously, the two men held captive by the so called FSA have claimed not a single one of their captors were actually Syrian. And as I mentioned before, this is not the only report of its kind, but this exactly the kind of information being abhorrently censored some users. For this reason and other reasons the POV tag must remain for now.

Also, by no means is Al Arabyia considered a reliable or appropriate source for Wikipedia. If we must, then lets have a vote on it. The vote should be done on here:Talk:Al Arabiya for everyone to see, just like it was done with other news sources like Russia Today. STOLE MY COOKIES (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Good job with the article folks. It reads MUCH better than it did a week or two ago. There is still one or two 'facts' being referenced from Al Arabiya, but it looks fine. :) STOLE MY COOKIES (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Alleged WP:SYNTHESIS

The paragraph on Fatah al-Islam

The paragraph:

In late April 2012, it was reported that one of the leaders of the radical Lebanese terrorist group Fatah al-Islam, Abdel Ghani Jawhar, was killed during the battle of Battle of Al-Qusayr, after he blew himself up while making a bomb. According to the group, he had traveled to Syria with a group of 30 Lebanese fighters to participate in the uprising.[267]

This paragraph was removed because this article is about the Free Syrian Army and the subsection is about Islamism in the FSA. It doesn't make sense to include Fatah al-Islam in this article. the Free Syrian Army has made it clear that it does not support jihadis, al-qaeda, and other islamic extremists. If the source had stated that Abdel Ghani Jawar was going to join the FSA or the FSA was forming an alliance with Fatah al-Islam then sure it would make sense to include this information, otherwise it appears that this information is coat tailing or tangling on this article.

The information seems newsworthy and I'm sure can be included in a more relevant Syrian uprising article like the Syrian uprising timeline article. --Guest2625 (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. But still not too sure. EkoGraf (talk) 13:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah lets stop including non-FSA organizations on the FSA page. Sopher99 (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Article is about the FSA, not all rebel groups

This article is about the Free Syrian Army one of the armed opposition groups fighting in Syria. This article is not about the rebels in general. Material that is not about the Free Syrian Army does not belong in this article. Although editors are free to do whatever they feel like, generally, it is considered problematic in the publishing world to attribute a claim to a group which is not backed with an appropriate source. Material that does not state the Free Syrian Army will be removed. The burden is on the editor to argue for inclusion on the talk page. Guest2625 (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

When sources talk about HRW investigating rebels in general for war crimes they by all logic include the FSA, which is the biggest group. Removing the sourced info based on that the FSA is not specificly mentioned is highly pov. For sake of compromise, I will state in paragraph that the sources talk about rebels in general. Hope that satisfies you. The telegraph source you removed contained in the last paragraph that the FSA acknowledged extrajudicial killings by its forces and that they would punish by trial those responsible. Which I have put in the article now. As for the reuters source that you removed on the basis it didn't say what it was sourcing, that HRW investigators said rebel forces commited war crimes, but not as large as government troops, you were wrong there. The source does say it, just read a little more careful. I have noted that the investigators were talking about opposition forces in general. There is no OR about that. Again, let readers make their own opinions. EkoGraf (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not a personal point of view to remove material that is not related to the article. The sources that were removed do not say anything about the FSA. It's original research to assume that rebels mean the FSA when there are numerous other opposition forces fighting in the civil war. Your logic implies that if an 18 year old robs a bank then all 18 year olds are bank robbers, which is false. The material that does not state the FSA will be removed in 24 hours. There have been other editors who disagree with you on this topic. Tomorrow I'll check the sources can't do anything today because as you stated 3RR. Guest2625 (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As has been stated above this article is about the Free Syrian Army and not the rebels in general. Also, it should be noted that the edit summaries are not meant for discussions. Discussions and edit disputes should be carried out on the talk page where other editors can contribute their thoughts. Currently, other editors disagree with an editor's contribution.Guest2625 (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I never wrote in the article they were the FSA, I only said rebels but noted, with proper sources, that the towns in which the killings happened are FSA-controlled (sources don't mention any mujahideen presence). So there is no OR, everything is written per the sources, please refrain from unfounded accusations and assuming bad faith, that is not per Wikipedia rules on civility. Furthermore, it can be stated that your removal of the sourced info, on the basis that maybe they were mujahedeen, can be considered OR or POV, due to the fact that all of the provided sources state that the towns in which the killings took place are FSA-controlled, no mention of mujahedeen or SLA presence. EkoGraf (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Providing three sources confirming that the rebels throwing postal workers of the roof were FSA. Hope that satisfies you. EkoGraf (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The source where the Turkish correspondent speculates about who the culprits were at the the post office is borderline. Journalists with names are free to do their own original research although it should be noted that the journalist wasn't there and didn't even see the video. Guest2625 (talk) 23:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The point here is what the Al-Monitor reporter is stating. The source itself says and I quote. Cuneyt Ozdemir writes that a video he's seen recently, purportedly showing Free Syrian Army fighters throwing postal workers'... So in fact, the writer of the report did see the video. And you even have a double confirmation there with the Turkish reporter saying it is possible it was the FSA. As far as the military.com source goes, fine, remove it. However, the report by the opposition activist can be used by all means. We have used reports by hundreds of opposition activists on all the Syria civil war articles without question when they reported on potential killings by government forces. There is no reason to exclude this one when the FSA is identified as the killer. And the source also names the perpetrators of the killings as the Heroes of al-Bab. I already provided in the past sources which noted the FSA being the only ones who were involved in the capture of al-Bab. I can provide it again if you want. Also, provided sources that identify the killers of that government soldier, who was executed by his own grave, as members of an FSA brigade. I have even named the brigade per the sources. Hope that also satisfies you. EkoGraf (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

First Paragraph

This paragraph has been removed because the sources do not indicate that FSA members committed this act. If you wish this paragraph to be included, have a discussion below. Do not place back until dispute is resolved. See the following article on how to deal with edit warring WP:DR.

Witnesses have also reported rebels conducting 'trial by grave' in which an alleged government soldier was given a mock trial next to a pre-made grave and executed on the spot by members of the FSA Amr bin al-Aas brigade. One rebel said: "We took him right to his grave and, after hearing the witnesses' statements, we shot him dead".Syrian soldier executed after graveside "trial"Syria's Assad praises troops, keeps out of public eyeExpert: Peace for Syria will not come from the outside

Oh my god, did you even read the new sources I added? The first reuters source identifies the fighters that killed the soldier as being members of the Amr bin al-Aas brigade, while the 3rd source identifies them being an FSA brigade. EkoGraf (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Good job at sourcing the claim. I didn't follow your sourcing logic at first. Guest2625 (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that the sources are refering to the Free Syrian Army. If we are talking about the throwing of the dead bodies from a the post office, there is this activist, mentioned in the source, stating that those who throwed the bodies were the "FSA". I think that is clear enough. Moreover, I haven't saw that any sourced connected the "rebels" with any other rebel organization except the FSA. I think that a statement coming from the oppisition activist is a very strong statement that is hardly to be false. And we always include the activists' statements, why would we make an exception on this one? If we do it would mean that we are pushing someone's point of view. Another thing is with this sniperist being killed after a show trial and other executions where sources are mentioning the "Amr bin al-Aas brigade". First source doesn't says that the brigade is part of the FSA, however, the other source ([33]) clearly states that the al-Aas brigade is part of the Free Syrian Army. There is no way that such thing is someone's point of view with source stating that the brigade is indeed part of the FSA. Accusing someone of pushing a POV is baseless. Also, about those dead bodies being thrown from the post office, AL-Monitor also has very clear statements, "...in short, the FSA has all sorts of psychopaths, criminals, radical Islamists, looters and those who dream of a free country after the regime collapses or say they will slaughter the first Alawite they happen to meet." Such statement can't be understood in any other way but the one that those who were throwing the dead bodies were indeed members of the FSA. Moreover, no any other source connects any other rebel organizations to those misdeeds, and I think that those informations should stay in the article as they are very-well sourced. I also haven't saw any source denying the involvement of the FSA in the misdeeds. --Wüstenfuchs 01:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Second paragraph

This paragraph has been removed because the sources do not indicate that FSA members committed this act. If you wish this paragraph to be included, have a discussion below. Do not place back until dispute is resolved. See the following article on how to deal with edit warring WP:DR.

On 13 August 2012, a series of three videos surfaced showing executions of prisoners, apparently by rebel forces, in Aleppo province. In one video, six postal workers were being thrown off the main postal building in Al-Bab to their deaths by gunmen. The gunmen claimed they were shabiha.Uproar as footage shows Syrian rebel atrocitiesSyrian video said to show rebels throwing bodies off roofVideo Appears to Portray Harsh Tactics By Syrian Rebels

1. Only the postal video has some vague sourcing connection to the FSA. The statements about the other two videos definitely needs to be removed.

2. The following tweet is not a reliable source for claiming that the FSA did the action. Clearly the way the tweet is stated is that the statement is based on secondary sources and speculation of who the culprits are:

One activist, known on Twitter as @KareemLailah, posted this reference to the rebel Free Syrian Army: "FSA throwing security forces from the post building in Bab city in #Aleppo is a big shame & must be widely condemned. #Syria."

If there is a problem with my above assessment of the tweet and the reliability of tweets by their very nature, I think it would be a great thing to take over to the reliable source noticeboard and let other editors not involved in this topic discuss. I'm comfortable in stating that such a tweet is not a reliable source.

3. The al-Monitor article is an article that speculates about who were the culprits in the video. The author of the article, Cuneyt Ozdemir, wonders if this was the action of the FSA. He has seen the video. He is unsure. To figure out who could be the culprits he asks Turkish war correspondent, Sebati Karakurt, whether the individuals in the video could have been the FSA. Sebati has not seen the video, but does state that FSA members could have been the culprits. That is what the article states.

This will not cut it for inclusion. Just because Sebati Karakurt, who has not seen the video, feels it could have been the FSA does not mean by a long shot that it was the FSA. He himself implies that he does not know who the individuals in the video were and nor does the author of the article. In order to include the material, there needs to be a reliable source that takes responsibility for the statement that the individuals were FSA members. I'm sure if they were FSA members there will be a reliable source stating it somewhere out there.

4. In response to Ekograf's point that the culprits are the "Heroes of al-Bab". It's fine to state this, however, do you have a reliable source that says that the "Heroes of al-Bab" battalion/brigade is a unit of the FSA. It would be great if you could provide that source as you did in the above resolved dispute.

5. Also, the quote "Cuneyt Ozdemir writes that a video he's seen recently, purportedly showing Free Syrian Army fighters throwing postal workers'..." is not from the article but from the summary of the article and in fact poorly summarizes what in fact the article states. There is no need to quote the article summary by the translator/or whoever rather than just sticking with what the author says in the actual article. Guest2625 (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Due to your own reservations, for the sake of compromise I put the word purportedly. But it seems you don't like that ether. Two sources have been provided pointing to the possibility of it being the FSA, the Al-Monitor and the LA times. Both notable and reliable sources. Your reasoning to try to exclude them is becoming unreasonable and not logical. I have now also added a new Al Jazeera source [34] in which an FSA commander semi-admits to the possibility of them being FSA fighters. P.S. Read what Wüstenfuchs said. You wanted multiple editors to be in agreement. You got it. Any further removal of the info would frankly be pov-pushing. EkoGraf (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Rustam Gelayev

Note: this discussion has been moved from User talk:Asarlaí and concerns the following sentence added by EkoGraf:

On 22 August, it was reported, by an Islamic Chechen website, that Rustam Gelayev, the son of the late Chechen rebel commander Ruslan Gelayev, had been killed between 11 and 13 August, while fighting with the Syrian rebels against government forces.

There is nothing OR about the sentence. Everything that is written in the sentence is precisely as the source says. Please assume good faith and don't accuse other editors so easily of faulty edits. The point of the sentence is to indicate the general trend of Islamist presence among rebel forces. Please do not remove properly sourced information. For the sake of avoiding an edit war over this please propose a compromise solution and I will abide by it. EkoGraf (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The sentence itself isn't OR but it's OR to put it in this article and in that section. The section is about the FSA's links with Islamists. The source does not say that Rustam Gelayev is an Islamist or that he fought with the FSA. Thus, it breaches WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS and doesn't belong in the article. It belongs at Syrian civil war#Foreign involvement or Syrian opposition. ~Asarlaí 22:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

He was reported killed by an Islamic militant web press service and he was the son of a known Chechen Islamic rebel commander. How much confirmation do you need he is an Islamist? Its all in the source. And it definetly is not OR since I never wrote he was fighting with the FSA, I wrote per the source only rebels (although 90 percent of all rebel forces in Syria are FSA, so what are the chances). And SYN in no way applies here. The whole point of the sentence is to indicate the general trend of Islamist presence among rebel forces, there is no rule banning the mention of it from the article. Anyway, at this point, I am not the only one who has reverted you. User 178.10... has also reverted you soon after you reverted me. Thus I am not alone in my opinion. And due to this I again urge you to propose a compromise solution, to which I will abide by. P.S. Sidenote, you reverted my edit 3 times, revert it again and you will be in violation of the 3RR rule. So I advise you to take the 24-hour cooling period (which I am also taking) and think of a compromise please. Thank you. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edit is the definition of WP:SYNTHESIS:

• A man is killed fighting for the rebels... the FSA is the biggest rebel group... thus he must hav' been in the FSA.
• The man's father was (you claim) a Chechen Islamist... thus he too must be an Islamist.

The article on Ruslan Gelayev (his father) makes no mention of him being an Islamist. Even if he was, it makes no difference. Also, the IP who reverted me has been banned for pro-Assad vandalism. ~Asarlaí 00:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You are twisting my words, which doesn't show any good faith on your part. I never, ever wrote that he was fighting with the FSA. What I was trying to do was point, in an encyclopedic way, to the overall trend of increasing Islamic militant presence among rebel forces in general. There is nothing OR or SYN about that. Also, I never, ever myself made the claim he was an Islamist. I was instead pointing you to the source which was itself confirming for you in two ways that he was an Islamist, based on that his death was reported by an Islamic militant website and that his father was part of the Chechen separatist movement against Russia, whose members were 99 percent Islamists. However, since you want concrete proof that he was of the Islamic faith than here [35]. Quoting the source for you After living in Chechnya, Rustam moved to an unspecified Middle Eastern country to study Islam, the rebel websites reported. He joined the anti-Assad forces in Syria earlier this summer. Also, if you say it makes no difference, than why are you arguing about it so much? Listen, please stop with the edit warring and propose a compromise solution in good faith, which I have been pleeding you to do for the last few times. Because Wikipedia is based on neutrality, verifiability, teamwork and good faith, which includes compromises in the face of disagreements. EkoGraf (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. You should familiarize yourself with WP: SYN. It clearly states that the combination of two different sources to form a third conclusion is prohibited. I don't see how SYN was possible in this case when only one source was used and everything written was exactly per the sources, no deviation. EkoGraf (talk) 01:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Double P.S. On the point of his father, you said the article doesn't say he was Islamist, even though he was, per the Wikipedia article, the commander of the Chechen militant organisation known as the Sharia guard. I think the name of the group would tell the whole story. EkoGraf (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

News flash: Not all Muslims and not all Chechen rebels ar' Islamists. How does proving he's a Muslim prove he's an Islamist? The claim that "99% of Chechen separatists ar' Islamists" is also absurd. I suggest you read-up on the conflict.

"I never, ever wrote that he was fighting with the FSA. And I never, ever myself made the claim he was an Islamist" ... Then why is this story in a section about the FSA's links with Islamists? By putting it here you ar' implying that he's an Islamist and that he has links with the FSA. Unless you can prove that, this info belongs at Syrian civil war#Foreign involvement or Syrian opposition. ~Asarlaí 01:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Listen, at this point I don't even care anymore. Since you are not open for compromise or even talking to me in good faith, fine, remove the sentence. However, I would like to point to a few factual mistakes you just made, regardless of the sentence. First, I was never trying to prove he was a Muslim, I never, ever even mentioned the word Muslim. You did, just now. And based on your comment I can only guess you didn't even read the source I provided you with in which it is explicetly said the son went to a middle-eastern school to learn about Islam. Second, your comments about the Chechen conflict, are frencly absurd as much as you said I was being absurd. Every last one of the Chechen militants were fighting in the name of jihad against Russia after 1999. Also, third thing, since you are talking about Muslims, you should know an adherent of Islam is called a Muslim. Check it out on our Wikipedia page. That's all I had to say. I don't care anymore, like I said, I'm done, do what you will. EkoGraf (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to prove he was a Muslim. I assumed he was a Muslim from the beginning, as he's from Chechnya. Then you posted "since you want concrete proof that he was of the Islamic faith..." as if that somehow proves he's an Islamist.

I think a fair compromize is that the information be kept on Wikipedia but moved to a related article wher' it has relevance (Syrian civil war#Foreign involvement or Syrian opposition). ~Asarlaí 01:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The source does not state involvement with the Free Syrian Army and therefore does not belong in this article. As has been stated before, this article is about the Free Syrian Army and not about the rebels in general. Guest2625 (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, do what you will, paint it the way you feel like it, remove it, I don't care. I'm done arguing. There is a proverb in my country. The smarter man gives way.EkoGraf (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war

I just created Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war to help us in the future in having a supporting reference about the geography of the conflict and allow us to update maps for the conflict. I thought it would be a starting point to have editors start compiling sourced information and keep track of the evolution of the situation on the ground. As indicated by Syria’s Maturing Insurgency, 5. “Syria’s maturing insurgency has begun to carve out its own de facto safe zones around Homs city, in northern Hama, and in the Idlib countryside.” So it seems helpful to have this list to keep track of these “safe zones”. In the future, this list will make the updating of the maps easy since the map creator would just need to go down the list and put the colored dots (or whatever) on the template map (the list gives the district and province of each town…)Unfortunately, the article was nominated for deletion and receiving delete votes from editors who are not involved in editing Syria articles. Take a look at the article (List of areas currently held by Syrian opposition) and see if you find it could be useful and if you would like to vote in the deletion discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_areas_currently_held_by_Syrian_opposition Tradedia (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Update Tradedia (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)