Talk:Sectarianism and minorities in the Syrian civil war

Kurds in Syrian civil war

This section needs some expansion and I would like to elaborate on this part, talking about the Kurds in Syria, the lead up to the civil war and their role and activities during the war (PYD/KNC etc.) Expanding on the topic of sectarianism in relation to the Kurds would also be needed in my opinion. What are your thoughts about this?

```` (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Merged

Small article on Alawis into this one, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. By the way, with your forced merge attempt you added twice some of the information. --FavorLaw (talk) 23:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Nominated FavorLaw's fork for deletion

I'd like to invite everyone active on this page to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Alawite Sentiment in the 2011-2012 Syrian Uprising. No need to have two pages, one with an outrageously POV title, repeating the same information. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Due/undue concerns

I took the liberty of condensing some of the (unverifiable) individual anecdotes about anti-Alawite violence into more general statements about the danger Alawites reportedly face from pro-opposition Sunnis in Syria. I'm looking now over the "Sunnis" section and I'm finding the same WP:DUE concern I had vis a vis the Alawite accounts. While I don't doubt shabiha have killed Sunni civilians during the uprising, based on numerous independent reports out of the country, why is one of these incidents in particular mentioned, as if it was a unique occurrence? It seems to me that this page is necessary because this sectarian violence has become systemic in Syria.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how this can be rewritten? -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately we appear to have one editor, User:Diroc2 (formerly known as User:Diroc and User:Bdjim) who appears to have some ownership issues and is trying to prevent the page from being changed from a poorly written version from over a week ago. The editor in question is either willfully refusing to participate on Talk or lacks the English language skills necessary to discuss his opposition to the article changing in any form whatsoever (I suspect it may be some combination of the two, judging from what I can understand of his edit summaries). I'd like to reiterate what I told him on his Talk page: this isn't about removing information, it's about rearranging it in a more presentable way, as well as adding new information. Nothing is being "suppressed". -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

2500 characters with new suppressed by you because you do not like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diroc2 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I want you to find one properly sourced piece of information in the outdated version of the page that isn't either mentioned specifically or summarized as part of a broader trend in the current version. One. Just one. Find it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sectarianism extends to Europe

This may qualify here, a Shia Imam in Belgium was killed by a Sunni over the conflict in Syria: http://tribune.com.pk/story/349701/brussels-mosque-arsonist-wanted-to-scare-shia-community-over-syria-violence/ FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Definitely belongs here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Concur. -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fides

Sopher99 has removed parts referenced by Agenzia Fides claiming that it is a biased news agency. I don't think that anyone is allowed to make such a judgement with proper consultation. Anyway even if we agree that Fides is unreliable as a neutral source it's still illegible to be mentioned since it doesn't claim to be the source of the info but rather sites official local Christian authorities.--Rafy talk 01:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a state-run news agency, which we generally try to avoid. And there is a difference between the likes of BBC News or Voice of America and the likes of SANA and Agenzia Fides; the latter act as mouthpieces of government organs, while the former merely receive public funding. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

All what Fides is doing is citing local authorities, and the text is clear in attributing what is mentioned to Fides and sources cited by Fides. By the way, VoA IS a mouth piece of the American government since they are considered a governmental organisation and their news reporting policy is handed down from above. Also why is Al Jazeera considered reliable then? We all know that it's a tool owned by the Qatari royal family which is actively supporting the rebels. They're actually supporting them so much that their correspondents have been filmed fighting alongside the rebels.--Rafy talk 02:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

None of that is true. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you elaborate your answer?--Rafy talk 02:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

VoA reports to an independent U.S. government agency that is unanswerable to any authority in Washington; it has no qualms about reporting critically on U.S. allies like Bahrain, Yemen, and Uzbekistan. The BBC follows a similar structure. Al Jazeera maintains editorial independence as well, unashamedly pissing off the Qatari government with the documentary Shouting in the Dark about Qatar's ally and economic partner Bahrain just last year. They're not comparable to SANA or Fides, which are direct mouthpieces of (respectively) the Syrian and Vatican City governments. Additionally, I find it highly suspicious that Fides seems to have this major scoop on Syrian Christians, courtesy of a slew of unnamed sources, that news organizations with an established presence in the region do not. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The VoA is part of the BBG, an Independent agencies of the United States government. I'm not sure how transparent the US government is, but US law makers certainly have a saying in what they should or should not report. (See Voice of America#Controversy)

I have personally witnessed how Al Jazeera manipulates news. In 2003 the Iraqi army put some radars in a residential area close to where I live. This led to a conflict with the locals who knew that this is an invitation for US planes to bomb this area. Anyway, the radars stayed and they were bombed some days later which resulted in a few casualties. What happened later was that the Jazeera team sat down with Iraqi intelligence and survivors to come up with a story on how the US, yet again, attacked civilian targets. They later made an interview with a woman whose daughter lost her eyes during the attack. She was infuriated at the Iraqi regime and even started cursing Saddam, later that evening that interview was broadsided but it was so heavily edited that it seemed as if the woman was cursing Bush!

Back to today, Qatar had its conflicts with both Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, and they would invite some dissidents from time to time to show in in their programs. However could you explain why they were reluctant to report on the uprising in Bahrain and the Shiite demonstration in Saudi Arabia. Even if they shyly report those events they are simply very briefly put at the bottom on their websites and there is almost no mention of it on their Arabic language broadcastings. I could bring tens of sources criticising their double standards regarding the Arab spring, so better not go there.

You find Fides highly suspicious because it doesn't confront to your views, they are not the only news agency that cite an unnamed source, actually 90% of our news come from "eyewitnesses" and local "human rights groups". Well, at least Fides is attributing this to a source from the Syrian orthodox Metropoly. Anyway as I said before the paragraphs are clearly attributed to Fides and their sources. By the way other Christian aid groups active in Syria are reporting atrocities by "freedom fighters" against Christians, read [1] and [2].--Rafy talk 11:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No to Fides. It's Vatican propaganda. If you can find editorially independent sources that say the same thing, great, but Fides isn't gonna work for me. Sorry. I've already explained why. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well you're not the president of Wikipedia. Use the RSN if you don't like it.--Rafy talk 18:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

All the content added by Rafi seems to be properly sourced and on-topic. I have restored it. If there are concerns about the suitability of a source or sources, then the usual route is to raise the matter either in this talk page or elsewhere, and not to delete the content. And present an argument properly: shouting "Vatican propaganda" isn't going to get anyone anywhere in a discussion. Meowy 00:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Stance of Christians

I see three major problems with the section... overall though, I would say, it portrays Christians as pro-Assad when in reality a better description would be that they are divided or neutral.

1) Most problematically, the section paints a simplistic and often incorrect picture of Christians universally supporting Assad and that the opposition is hostile to them and their existence. While there are Christians that support Assad, and there are opposition members who are intolerant Sunnis, it is a huuuuge stretch to say that all of both groups can be described this way. Earlier in the uprising it was well-known that many Christians were active in the protests, and Christian quarters of towns helped the protestors by providing them with shelter, water, etc. Early in, it was widely claimed that a majority of Christians supported the uprising. Much of this support drained away in the summer and fall of 2011 because of the presence of a small but visible minority of radical Salafi Islamists among the opposition, who shouted sectarian (and ethnic) chants, and Christians originally in the protests deserted. But that doesn't mean there are many pro-Assad Christians (like there are very pro-Assad Alawites). Even most "pro-Assad" Christians' views are more along the lines of Assad being the lesser evil, and they wouldn't take up arms to fight for him the way Alawites would. Furthermore, there are still many Christians involved with or supporting the opposition- they are represented in the SNC and the local committees, they are in the FSA, and many support the opposition in practical ways. For example, according to a recent Economist article (see here: [[3]]), one church-based group ferries medicine. According to the same article, Christians and Muslims even attend funerals together. Thankfully, there are a couple of sentences noting that some Christians support the opposition, but the section is hugely unbalanced, in favor of the "Christians are like Alawites and the opposition kills them" viewpoint, which is not necessarily mainstream. Christians are not like Alawites- a better analogy would be Kurds. --Yalens (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

2) There are some questionable sources in the section. It would be better to have political analyses and/or at least respected (and secular) media outlets like, say, the Economist or Reuters, rather than the Christian Post and catholicCulture.org. You could hardly call the latter neutral. --Yalens (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

3) The page, erroneously, treats Christians in Syria like they are a homogenous group (once again, like Alawites...). They are not. First of all, they aren't even all the same ethnicity: there are Armenians, Assyrians(mainly only in the Northeast) and then the "normal" Syrian Christians who have the same Arabic~Aramaic culture as their Muslim brethren. Then, these three ethnicities are divided between different Christian sects (and there are a small number of Assyrian Muslims). All these different Christian groups don't necessarily have the same stances. For example, Armenians are said to be much more likely to take a negative view of the opposition, because of the stance of their church and because of despised Turkey's association with the opposition. It might make sense to at least point out on the page that "Christians" are not a single group. --Yalens (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Al-Arabiya

I don't think a Saudi news outlet qualifies as a reliable source. Almost all claims found in this article are false and easily refutable.

1. The "Greek Orthodox Mariamite Church" is not sanctioned by the regime and it's still, as the seat of the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, very critical of the opposition.
2. It is unclear who killed the priest Basilius Nassar, as usual each side claims claims the it was the others who shot him. What we know for sure is that he was caught in crossfire.[4]
3. Official Orthodox sources and Russian media claim that the Convent of our Lady of Saidnaya was targeted by extremists. A previous article by Al-Arabaiya didn't hold anyone responsibility for the attack.
4. Same goes for Um al-Zennar Church, it's unclear who targeted it but most Christian sources accuse the opposition.[5]. Syriac Orthodox sources doesn't blame any side.[6]

There is without any doubt high ranking church officials that are alienating themselves from the regime, though this doesn't necessary implies that they became pro-rebels. Here is an interview in German with the head of the Syriac Catholic Church where he is clearly against the "totalitäres Regime" of Syria but still wary of the "islamische religiöse Fanatiker".[7] Similar fears are expressed by the Syriac Orthodox Archbishop of Aleppo, the second highest ranking official in that Church.[8]--Rafy talk 17:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I don't think Russian, Orthodox or Vatican media/sources should take any precedence over Saudi media. If there are conflicting claims, perhaps they should be stated side-by-side with their sources attributed, and neither claim should be given more support by the page (unless it is widely agreed to be the true one). Of course this probably means that every single event has two or more claims of blame, since even the Houla massacre is alleged by Assad and his media friends to be done by rebel "terrorists". But it would be better than the alternative, which was as the page was before, giving support to the claims of Orthodox (many officials of which are known to be cooperating with the regime, so what they say is questionable) and Orthodox-influenced Vatican media (and even SANA in some edits) without even mentioning counterclaims. It is good to show both sides.

Secondly, I don't think anyone doubts the fact that there are many Christians who dislike both the regime and the rebels. --Yalens (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding "according to the Saudi owned Al-Arabiya... However official orthodox sources..." would convince any reader of the validity of the first claim. Also I do't think one can make a case for intolerant Assad(s), a quick Google search will refute such claims. Anyway if you use Al-Arabiya, others would also use SANA and PressTV, so better stick to Der Spiegel and the BBC.

What's wrong with Vatican sources by the way? The Vatican is unlike Saudi, Iran, and Russia not involved in the conflict. Fides does interview anti-government leaders, something you would never see in Arabiya or PressTV.--Rafy talk 20:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

@Assad:Whether Bashar al-Assad himself is intolerant of Christians is irrelevant. What matters is actions and policies, not words and thoughts. The established consensus is that both Assads (son and father) had policies that created both advantages in some areas and disadvantages in others, is it not?

@VaticanSources: I don't distrust Vatican sources as a whole, but I do in this particular case Vatican because they (that one Fides article in particular) report as facts what they are told by Syrian church officials, many of which are thought to be in bed with the regime. That Fides article based most of its report on communications with these officials, rendering its content questionable.

@SANA,etc: Saying SANA or PressTV have the same level of bias as Al-Arabiya is an enormous stretch. SANA is literally the mouthpiece of the Assad gov't, and it is used as a tool among other things to keep him in power. PressTV is similarly used by the Iranian gov't as a tool to help keep their only friend in the whole region in power. Even if Al-Arabiya was controlled completely by Riyadh, the Saudi gov't doesn't have such a huge stake. In fact, despite Saudi Arabia being known to sympathize with the rebels to some degree, they have also shown discomfort at the prospect of another successful Arab revolution, lest their own people get some ideas. A better equivalent for SANA would be quoting rebels directly or using their various websites. PressTV, for its part, runs "factual" articles with conspiracy theory-esque headlines like "US helps Al-Qaeda infiltrate Syrian rebels" [9]. Al-Arabiya doesn't even approach that level of propaganda- at least they don't make up their own theories on what's happening. Lastly, Gulf Arab news agencies don't necessarily always reflect their government's will. For example, while Qatar helped suppress the Bahraini protests, Al-Jazeera (despite its links to the royal family) ran sympathetic coverage of those same protestors. --Yalens (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Ethno-religious map

A recently produced image (a map of ethnic & religious areas in Syria) was added to the article, but there is no sourcing for the image. E.g., it was created by someone and uploaded, but we have no indications as to how or from where the data for the map came from. We are simply told it was the creation of the unknown editor. In this regard, the map is utterly without WP:RS or WP:V and cannot be used. --S. Rich (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I found a compilation of Ethno-religious division of Syria [10] with map and sources, I hope it would help. Personally, I would really appreciate a map like this [11] which give clear overview of many of what is discussed in the article.(I suspect that every none Syrian native will appreciate it as well)--Mor2 (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sunni Muslims

Please continue editing starting from my current balanced version less based on one Saudi source. The Sunni population of Syria holds still a majority of government posts. The government posts in absolute numbers are Sunni Muslims, but the president and some other ministers are Alawi (Shi'ite offshoot), also recognized by Shia as fellow Muslims. A majority of Syria's Sunni Muslims are moderate, especially in the large cities and towns where Sunnis are used to co-existence with Shi'ites (Ismaili's 2 % of Syria), Alawis (12 %) and especially Christians (who always continued to live as a large minority in the larger towns of the Sunni parts of Syria). The tendencies which carry the Syrian uprising, as during the Islamic Uprising in Syria 1980-1982, are the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists and some of their minor Islamist groups. They organized different armed jihadist fronts, which were joined by foreign Wahabi and takfiri Salafist "Sunni" Muslims not representative of the general moderate (and sometimes Sufi) Sunni Muslim majority of Syria. The claim that the regime is based on Alawis and that Assad was burning churches is from Al Arabiya, the voice and puppet news channel of the dictator king of Saudi Arabia which is a directly involved party in this conflict. One cannot take over his sources, nor statements of the US Foreign Ministry. Cypriot, Chinese, Russian, African and especially Lebanese sources are more informed and more balanced. Even Israeli sources are more reliable, Haaretz indicating that the Alawis and the urban Sunni Muslim moderate and secular-minded majority carry the current laicist Ba'ath Party Syrian Arab Republic state. Some of the Saudi source even calls Alawi Muslims "Alevites", which form only 0.5 % of Syrians (mostly Kurds and Turkmen minority). Shia Muslims in Syria are either Ismaili (2 %) or Alawites (12 %). We should look for more reliable sources. The Syrian Civil War is not between civilian groups but rather an Uprising mainly supported by Islamists, although also some Communists, laicist banned opposition politicians, a few Christians and exiled Muslim Brotherhood "moderates" carry this armed struggle. Some of the Syrian National Council, even the Assyrian Democratic Organization of Assyrian separatist nationalist Christians, promote peaceful demonstrations and dialogue. Just like Vladimir Putin called for too, but which the foreign powers Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Hillary Clinton refuse to allow. Peaceful political negotiations are sabotaged. See you here again after the NATO aerial aggressive war about to start now.NiederlandeFW (talk) 10:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Since you're only source is an editorial, it is necessary to revert you... but Ill leave it at this: do. not. use. opinion. pieces. as. sources. period. And don't editorialize the page either, especially if you're going to conceal it in your edit summary as you did here ([[12]]). Wikipedia does not assert that anyone's viewpoint is the WP:TRUTH, it merely presents cited facts. I don't want to get into an argument about what exactly is going on in Syria- that's for policy experts, not wikipedia editors, and its not for this talk page, which is not a forum. What I want- and what you should want- is for the page merely to present facts without advancing anyone's analysis or POV. --Yalens (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Name

This page is named as if it were about religious groups only. However, some of the groups noted include Kurds and Turkmen, and their differentiating factor is not religion but ethnicity. Perhaps we could have Ethnoreligious dimension of the Syrian civil war or something like that as a new name?--Yalens (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's already an article for the Kurdish conflict: 2012 Syrian Kurdistan conflict. This article is mostly about conflicts between religious groups.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Twelver and Ismaili Shias in Syria

This article is very poor and needs some serious addition. Also the image needs updating to reflect smaller ethno-religious groups such as syria shias and Yezidis. There are many large predominantly shia towns in Syria such as Nubbul and Zahra near aleppo with 60,000 people each as well as Fou'aa and kafaria with around 100,000 people for both of them. Added to that the large NATIVE (NOT IRAQI OR LEBANESE) Shia population in sayyida Zainab, aljoura and Al Amin neighbourhoods in Old Damascus and rural damascus. there are also over 50 shia villages in and around Homs region so the native syria shia population can easily each over half a million....hope u update your article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.100.153.91 (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok for Salafist rebels to rape non-Sunni women

As fatwah'ed by a Salafi preacher who used to live in Syria: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/3/islamic-cleric-decrees-it-ok-syrian-rebels-rape-wo/#.UV7pISZhdsw.blogger No wonder the "rebels" swarm in from all over the world. FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Text in the Christian section... again

Kathovo argues that this edit ([13]) should stay because the BBC is, in his/her opinion, more reliable than Al-Arabiya. However, the matter actually has nothing to do with the BBC- instead, it has to do with...:
A) The edit is useless as it repeats things already said elsewhere in the section.
B) It gives a one-sided, POV interpretation of events. In reality, various different articles paint different pictures. It isn't just Saudi-funded Al-Arabiya which notes taht there are many Christians who are quite hostile to Assad- so does, for example, The Economist among others. In order to respect WP:NPOV policy, the page must paint both sides of hte picture. The wording of the paragraph, placed at the beginning of the section, does exactly the opposite. I might add that the original version did show both sides:

“ The stance of Christians in the conflict has a full range from strongly supporting the opposition to neutrality to supporting the Assad government as a guarantor of stability ”

C) Kathovo's wording actually changes what the cited source says. For example, the sources saying that Christians had a "relatively high level of tolerance" (relatively meaning more than other Middle Eastern countries) is changed to a "high level of tolerance" (i.e. totally changing the meaning), that they held "some positions" in government was changed to "many positions" and so on. All of these changes, needless to say, are pretty questionable editing practice, in addition to being WP:SYN problems.
I hope this sufficiently explained my reasons for reverting. --Yalens (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Well the quote in the original article isn't citing any refernce for that claim which why it was replaced by the BBC one. You didn't seem to mind that Al Arabiya is extremely biased when you used it extensively throughout the article. "Relativity" is also not expressed in Arabiya's version, the clause that the president must be Muslim was only introduced in the recent "reforms" aimed at calming the protests, not to forget the same law was iterated in every single country in the Middle East.--Kathovo talk 13:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The part of the article we're discussing has no use of Al-Arabiya, so its really not relevant (nor is the requirement that Syria's president must be Muslim, which by the way has existed long before modern events). What matters is that the original BBC source said "relatively", which you deleted. We can simply delete the paragraph, if you want, but the way it was before I reverted violated wikipedia policies.--Yalens (talk) 18:34, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

NPOV needed

Article pushes really hard to the idea of poor, good sunnis vs. bad shias. It mentions up front of involvement of Hezbollah and Iran but fails to mention, even later on, about the Sunni Islamic jihadists who flood Syria since 2011. Sunnis are massively supported by the Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey not to even mention the US. It's nowhere to be found in the article. Don't make a bad guy of Assad as opposition has a lot of blood on their hands too, really dirty blood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.57.129 (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ethno-religious composition of Syria

This is based on a 3 year old source[14] which is certainly out of date. Worse, I can only find figures for Arab-Sunni and Alawite, not the rest. I see Greeks was just added. Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Split, too wide scope

The article is overly long, and it doesn't have to be. Sectarianism is its own subject, and so are minorities. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Weak oppose - i think we should just rename it to Sectarianism in the Syrian Civil War. Sectarianism is about both majority and minorities.GreyShark (dibra) 21:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be no consensus for this split... OK to remove the tag? Nulla Taciti (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

POV and sectarianism

• I've noticed rewrites of neutrally worded sections being rewritten to push POV against what was stated in the source. We need a nuetrally worded article that acutely reflects a general consensus of reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is you Ism schism that are not reading the sources. Stating that "Christians" don't oppose the Assad regime is biased and goes against what is explicitly stated in sources such as Remaining Christians in Syria fight to save their land and Syrian rebel groups unite to fight ISIS. If you wish to make such statements, you must introduce specific WP:RS to back that up—you have yet to do that. Nulla Taciti (talk) 13:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sectarianism and minorities in the Syrian Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121009074911/http://www.rudaw.net:80/english/news/turkey/5166.html to http://www.rudaw.net/english/news/turkey/5166.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140219055345/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jevFaBhWboO5_Mqrgpk7ycShh4RQ?docId=CNG.493b5bfef777e0c4e6e2103828c1614e.1b1 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jevFaBhWboO5_Mqrgpk7ycShh4RQ?docId=CNG.493b5bfef777e0c4e6e2103828c1614e.1b1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—<sup>cyberbot II</sup><sub>Talk to my owner:Online</sub> 07:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Sunni Arabs

Article nowhere mentions the fact that the Sunni Arabs are a backbone of the Syrian secular government. Syrian Arab Army is composed mainly from Sunni Syrians, so was shabiha in the Aleppo governate. Sunnis hold governmental positions such as internal security, foreign affairs, and even the head of all armed forces are all Sunnis. Shias are not a significant minority in Syria to let government fight for 5 years, Sunnis make up 70%+ of all Syrians. More sources here: Sunni Shabiha, Why Assad's Sunni Army Has Not Defected, Assad's Sunni Foot Soldiers.

Section is biased and shows all Syrian Sunnis as those opposing the Syrian government which is a lie.

First of all, please refrain from biased & opinionated language like "the Syrian secular government". Also please be more clear about what you mean by "Shia", as considering Alawites as Shia is a controversial issue. Lastly blogs are not considered WP:RS (WP:USERGENERATED), so please be careful with what sources you use and the manner in which you choose to present them. Nulla Taciti (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Who wrote this article?

The article seems to be promoting ISIS ideas when stating what they are saying and even putting it in Arabic!! Most of sources here are really unreliable or bias. Could anyone suggest how this can be fixed? The article needs to be rewritten against in my opinion. SharabSalam (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Faylaq al-Sham in al-Fuah and Kafriya 21-7-2015.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Lack of balance & other issues

There are a few issues that I noticed on this page that I would like to point out. They mainly show bias in the selection of stories/sources and ignoring the full picture. I also discuss some other issues. I don't necessarily know how to fix it or have the time to track down references, but I wanted to mention them so that someone else might graciously contribute. I will not cite a reference for every statement here (otherwise I would be editing the actual page), but the following should be easily verifiable.

1- Overall, reading the page gave me the impression that minorities suffered higher casualties than the Sunni majority in the Syrian civil war. However, this is verifiably false (see [[15]] for example), even accounting for combatant deaths. It is true that the Alawite minority is probably overrepresented amongst all deaths, as is stated on this page; however, the Sunni (Arab) majority is disproportionately represented if we look at civilian casualties only, especially that the civilian victims of even the opposition and ISIL (which together, with the SDF's and US-led coalition's victims, represent something like 5-10% at most) have been mostly Sunnis. Of course, the sources above as the SOHR and UN sources repeatedly say, is probably an undercount especially in the government's victims, since there are tens of thousands of missing persons unaccounted for who disappeared in Syrian prisons (and the Syrian government hasn't lost control of its territories so no mass graves or burial sites could be found to give some estimate of the number killed, as happened when ISIS was defeated in Eastern Syria). It is also worth noting that foreign journalists, human rights activists, and media are rarely allowed in government-controlled areas, and when allowed usually monitored or given a controlled narrative (see 2 below), so that's probably another reason to expect that the number of people killed by the government is especially undercounted.

2- Some sources cite people living within Syria as denying the government committed certain crimes or accusing the rebels of committing others. However, it definitely should be noted that these reports can't be trusted even without the presence of government handlers. It is well-known that Syrians in the country are afraid of government retribution for any statements against them (which can be easily traced based on who talked with reporters and then what those reporters said in their reports). Even outside Syria, most Syrians can't talk freely against the government because they fear for their relatives there. I am sure it would be easy to find many sources of stories of reprisals against Syrian journalists and eyewitnesses inside Syria, or relatives of those outside Syria.

3- Something specific: there are citations from fides.org or the Vatican news network in the "Attacks on Christians and Churches" subsection that offer conflicting stories. It seems that the source updated its story based on new sources that denied that the Christians were expelled by Islamist rebels, but the original story is still mentioned with reference to the older article. It is worth mentioning that the older article cites an official church inside Syria, whose testimony suffers from the issues in (2) above, since they'd be an identifiable target for reprisals.

4- It seems like the page includes a lot of information on the history of some minorities in ways that are irrelevant to the civil war situation. For example, the "Arab Christians" subsection says nothing on their stance or suffering in the civil war. Similarly for the "Greeks" subsection. The section on the Kurds seems pretty balanced, which I was impressed by, but it includes a *lot* of history that seems unnecessary in a page on sectarianism and minorities in the civil war. This info would perhaps be better suited for a page on the development of Kurdish national identity (if such a page doesn't already exist).

5- The section on Sufis seems to imply that Sufis aren't Sunnis, which would be in opposition to the opinion of practically all of the Sufis themselves (who generally believe they are the "real" Sunnis, not the Salafis for example). Even amongst non-Sufis, save for some more radical Salafi elements, they are generally considered part of Sunni Islam.

6- At the end of the Twelver Shias subsection, a translation of a Quranic verse seems to be original research by the person who wrote it, based on a (deleted) tweet on Twitter. In any case, the translation is pretty inaccurate: the "die in rage" should be something like "die of [your] rage", if translated literally, but is probably better translated as something like "wallow in your sorrow/anger". However, I have found some translations online that do use "die *in*" (which I know is not correct as a native speaker), so maybe at least it should be mentioned that there are different translations, as it seems to me the meaning is lost in translation here (since no literal "death" is intended).

7- Finally, I am not sure the subsection on Chechens is suitable for this page, since the Chechens aren't a Syrian minority, although they have participated in the war (this also applied to Uzbeks and Uighurs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotan98 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Christians section neutrality

Hi, I am a Syrian Christian (born and raised) who is now living in Greece due to my hometown falling under the control of the anti-government rebels. The entire opening section on Christians is absolutely not neutral at all and makes ridiculous claims. 60% of churches destroyed by government forces? And the source is the source is the SNHR, which is literally a propaganda outlet of the opposition. This entire section needs serious revision. I am inclined to remove the claim of 60% or churches being targeted by government forces right now, as the SNHR doesn’t fall even remotely under the catgegory of neutral or reliable sources. I have noticed that at least 1 other user pointed out the same concern of mine years ago, but was ignored. 2600:1012:B317:C001:DC3D:708A:68C6:777 (talk) 05:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It is not correct to claim that SNHR is "pro-opposition", just because it is independent of Assad government.

SNHR is a non-government reporting source and is basically the top source of UN, major media outlets and war monitors across the world with regards to Syrian civil war.

There is also a consensus in wikipedia to use SNHR as a reliable source for war estimates as per prior discussions.

What is considered deprecated and unreliable in wikipedia is assadist propaganda sources and media outlets affiliated with the Assad regime. (See prior noticeboard discussions and RfCs)

Since you are speaking solely on a biased POV basis and havent given adequate explanations behind the POV template insertion, it shall get removed. Shadowwarrior8 (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Where exactly am I suggesting to use “Assadist” propaganda sources? You are attacking strawman here aren’t you? The funny thing is that the majority of the sources talking about Christians siding with Assad and being protected by him etc are actually independent western media outlets, that see through the lies. SNHR cannot be considered a neutral source when it comes to such figures, as there is no proof or way to verify such extraordinary claims. As I said, I am a Syrian Christian myself, and I know for certainty that the real threat to us Christians (who had lived in peace and flourished under Assad, mind you) is the salafist-ISIS death squads, not the secular Ba’athist government. Furthermore, I think that those figures should be removed because, per Wikipedia policy, extraordinary claims (such as this figure) require extraordinary sourcing, and I simply fail to see how one source (which, call it not directly affiliated with the opposition if you want, but it is still absolutely not neutral or impartial when it comes to the Syrian government) fulfills this even remotely. We simply haven’t heard such an incredible figure coming from anywhere else other than the SNHR, not even from independent western scholars. So, I think I have a pretty valid argument here. 2600:1012:B317:C001:6932:C837:6FB4:EAD0 (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)